Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Belfast Harbour Bill, Blyth Harbour Bill, Bristol Corporation Bill, Dover Harbour Bill, Dublin Port and Docks Bill, Manchester Ship Canal Bill, Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill, Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill, Swansea Harbour Bill, Tees Conservancy Bill, Tyne Improvement Bill, Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Beccles Waterworks Bill [Lords],

Hartlepool Corporation Bill [Lords],

Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords],

Read a second time, and committed.

Fylde Water Board Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL EXPORTS (HULL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the distress in the port of Kingston-upon-Hull by the prohibition of exports of coal from that port; and when permission to export coal from Hull will be granted?

The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Sir Auckland Geddes): I am aware that there is diminished employment in Hull as a result of the prevention of the export of coal. Unfortunately the output of coal from the Yorkshire and Midland fields is now so small that there is no exportable surplus after urgent British needs have been met. Already from various parts of the country reports have been received that full employment cannot
be given to the workers because of coal shortage. If coal were now exported from these fields in any quantity more widely-spread distress would be caused in the manufacturing districts than can possibly exist in Hull. I regret that I cannot state when it will be possible or desirable to resume coal export.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY STAFFS (SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fact that superannuation allowances to superannuated railway staffs are still based on the pre-war scale, and that these are inadequate to meet the present cost of living; and whether it is proposed to take any action to increase these allowances?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer to the question on this subject asked by the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham South on the 17th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON RAILWAY STATIONS CLOSED.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make representations to the Railway Executive Committee regarding the desirability of reopening the Old Kent Road, Deptford, and South Bermondsey stations, thereby meeting the convenience of large numbers of working people who in travelling to and from the City have now to rely upon over crowded tramway and omnibus services?

Sir A. GEDDES: South Bermondsey Station was reopened on the 1st May, but I understand that the other stations mentioned cannot be reopened at present.

Mr. GILBERT: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of railway stations which were closed by the Railway Executive Committee in London and the suburbs during the War; if he can state how many of these stations have been reopened up to date; how many more it is intended to reopen; and how many it is proposed to close permanently?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am asking the Railway Executive Committee for information on the points raised in this question, and I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman on receipt of their reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — BENZOL SUPPLY.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many gas undertakings are supplied with gas-scrubbing apparatus; and whether, in view of the great value to industry of producing a larger supply of benzol in this country, lie will take steps to ensure that all gas undertakings are fitted up with such plant at an early date?

Sir A. GEDDES: I understand that of the 1,577 gas undertakings in the United Kingdom 186 installed oil-washing plants and 600 tar-washing plants for the production of benzol. The Board of Trade have no power to compel gas undertakings to provide themselves with such plant.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could now state the result of the investigations of the Fuel Research Committee with regard to the production of benzol; and, if not, when will the Committee's Report be issued?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Report dealing with this and cognate subjects has been published as a Parliamentary Paper (Command No. 108).

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. REMER: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Commission is proceeding to Japan to study the question of Japanese competition in the cotton industry; whether the composition of the Commission comprises two merchants to one manufacturer; why this proportion was decided upon; and whether he will institute a similar Commission in connection with the silk industry, or, alternatively, appoint representatives of the silk industry to make a joint inquiry?

Sir A. GEDDES: The question of the dispatch of a mission to investigate the Far Eastern markets for cotton piece goods is at present under consideration. Foreign competition generally in these
markets, including Japanese, is no doubt one of the problems with which any mission would deal when investigating the general question. No definite decision has been taken either as to the dispatch of a mission or as to its composition, but the matter is to be discussed at a meeting to be held in Mancheter on the 8th May.
If those interested in the silk industry desire to make any proposals to me for an investigation abroad, I shall be very glad to give them careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY (BULK SUPPLY).

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that under the Temporary Increases of Charges Act, 1918, the town council of the borough of Hornsey applied some months ago for an order to permit them to increase the maximum charge per electric light unit from 8d. to 10d.; that the Board of Trade are withholding their consent, and are pressing the claims of a private electric light company to supply the corporation in bulk, despite the fact that the corporation is adequately equipped with ample reserves of plant, and that proposals for a national scheme of bulk supply are now under the consideration of the Government; and will he explain why the Board, in connection with matters relating to electrical undertakings, puts forward, at the suggestion of men who are directors or employés of some of the large electricity companies, the desirability of corporations obtaining bulk supplies from private companies pending the production of the Government scheme?

Sir A. GEDDES: The town council applied for an order at the end of January last. After consideration of the circumstances of the case, the Board decided to defer giving a decision until the results were known of the operation of the undertaking for the quarter ending, the 31st March. This information has not yet been supplied. The Board also inquired of the council whether they had considered the question of taking a supply of electricity in bulk from the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company, or from any other source. There is no ground whatever for the suggestion contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question. The inquiry in the Hornsey case
was made solely on account of the council's high working costs. Subsequently the North Metropolitan Company addressed a letter to the Board of Trade indicating their readiness to discuss terms with the council for a supply of electricity in bulk. A copy of that letter has been sent to the council for their observations in connection with the inquiry previously addressed to them.

Mr. JONES: Is it not a fact that on the Electricity Power Supply Committee there are representatives of vested interests, and does my right hon. Friend think it a desirable arrangement that these representatives of vested interests should have any control of the policy of the central authority in regard to representations which are made to local corporations?

Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member is surely under a misunderstanding in the matter. This is the policy of the Board of Trade, and the policy of the Board of Trade in this matter is inspired by the high working costs.

Mr. JONES: But does not the Board of Trade consider it inadvisable to suggest bulk supplies pending the production of the Government scheme?

Sir A. GEDDES: No. At present it is desirable that electricity should be supplied as cheaply as possible. It is not desirable that money should be wasted on high working costs.

Mr. JONES: Is it desirable that the Board of Trade should suggest that corporations already having a plentiful supply of material and machinery should be advised to have bulk supplies in order that in the event of the Government scheme materialising private companies should thereby be fortified in their demands for compensation?

Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend is suggesting motives which I can assure him did not operate at all. In the special circumstances of this case it is desirable that there should be less charges required for electricity. If that could be adopted anywhere surely it is an advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS AND ELECTRIC LIGHT (RATIONING).

Mr. GILBERT: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any decision has yet been come to by his Department as
regards the rationing of gas and electric light in London and the South of England; and can he state if the present rationing will be abolished and from what date?

Sir A. GEDDES: The matter is under consideration, and it is hoped to give a definite reply by the 31st May.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FROZEN MEAT (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 2 and 52.
asked (1) the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the quantities of Australian and New Zealand meat purchased by the Government and awaiting shipment to this country; the proportion of Australian meat allowed to be exported to this country, and whether intended for the British Army only or for general consumption; whether any (and if so, how much) Australian meat has been sold in the United States of America; (2) the Food Controller if he can state the quantities of Australian and New Zealand meat purchased by the Government and available for shipment to this country; whether only a proportion of the Australian meat is allowed to be brought over and, if so, to what extent; whether the incoming supplies of such meat are reserved for the British Army or are available for the general community; and whether any Australian meat has been sold in the United States of America?

Sir A. GEDDES: His Majesty's Government have purchased from Australia and New Zealand their whole exportable surplus of frozen meat. According to latest advices, the quantities awaiting shipment were on 31st March:—

In Australia
37,263 tons.


In New Zealand
173,639 tons.

Shipment is proceeding as fast as steamers can be made available. As a general rule, beef and wether mutton have been reserved for the use of the Allied Forces in the United Kingdom, the Continent, and Egypt, and all the ewe mutton and lamb have been sold to the civilian population of the United Kingdom, with some small exceptions. A very little Australian meat has been sold to the United States Government for Manila and Honolulu, and small quantities of New Zealand meat have been exported to the West Coast of Canada and the United States.

WHEAT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the average price of wheat per quarter for shipment f.o.b. at New York during January, February, March, and April, respectively, of the present year, and what was the average charge for freight and insurance of wheat per quarter from New York to United Kingdom ports during each of these months?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The average cost price of wheat to the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies during the months in question, which is the fixed cost price at terminal elevator to the United States Food Administration with the addition of estimated transit and carrying charges, was as follows:
January, 83s. 7d. per 480 lbs.
February and March, 83s. 11d. per 480 lbs.
April, 84s. 3d. per 480 lbs.
The average charge for freight and insurance during each of the four months to all ports in the United Kingdom was 9s. 1d. per 480 lbs.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that the price to other customers besides the British Government, or is it only the price at which the British Government purchases the wheat?

Mr. ROBERTS: All the Allied Governments are treated on the same basis.

CEREALS

Mr JOSEPH JOHNSTONE: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the proposal announced on 2nd April for the 1919 cereal crops fails to give effect to the pledge already given by him, especially in respect of barley and oats, in regard to which the proposed guarantee only applies to a portion of the production, whereas there was no such limitation in the pledge given; and if this differentiation would inflict a serious injustice on Scottish producers, especially since the guaranteed prices for cereals have already been used as a reason for the advance in agricultural wages?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The pledge of the
Government, given in the House of Commons on the 19th November last, expressly referred to "the prices paid to farmers for controlled cereals," and therefore did not include such part of the crops as would not be normally sold.

MILK DEPOTS.

Sir J. D. REES: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the Agricultural Organisation Society has appointed agents to visit different areas in the country and induce farmers to sign petitions to the Government to open milk factories in such areas, the inducement offered to the farmers being that by sending their milk to the towns through the agency of the factory they will be able to obtain an extra 2d. per gallon; that having obtained these petitions the Agricultural Organisation Society then asks for Government Grants towards the cost of building the factories in question, and that the Government has been giving them amounts equal to four times the sum put up by the Agricultural Organisation Society; whether he is aware that the effect of this action of the Government upon the milk supply to large towns is increasing the price of milk to the consumer by 2d. per gallon, and the milk having to be handled in the factory does not immediately reach its ultimate destination so promptly as it did under the former system when it was consigned directly by the farmer to the towns in which it was to be sold; whether he is aware that the dairy trade feels much aggrieved that this result should be brought about by the provision of money from the public purse; and if he will say when a return to the ordinary course of trade will be permitted and an end be put to the intervention of the Government which has raised the price of milk to the consumer?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have no knowledge of the petitions referred to by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question. The Board of Agriculture's scheme for the establishment of milk depots originated on the recommendation of the Committee on the production and distribution of milk over which, my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board presided, and the result has been a considerable increase in the supply of milk available for the markets. The prices which the producer, the wholesale mer-
chant, and the retailer can obtain for milk are fixed in each ease by the Food Controller, and the existence of these depots can in no way affect the price to the consumer. The work of organising these depots was entrusted by the Board to the Agricultural Organisation Society, and in the case of four societies formed under the scheme the Board have made loans (in accordance with the recommendation of the above Committee)at 6 per cent. interest, but in no case has the loan exceeded the amount of share capital raised by the members of a society.

Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge responsibility for what is being done by the Agricultural Organisation Society, either in full or in part?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We acknowledge responsibility for their establishing these milk depots, but as I have said, this has had no effect whatever on the price, and cannot have.

MILK.

Major COLFOX: 56.
asked the Food Controller whether he will state why the summer price of milk produced in the four south-western counties has been fixed at 2d. a gallon less than for that produced in the rest of the country; and whether, if it is assumed that these counties can produce milk more cheaply than competing counties, he will see fit correspondingly to raise the price of other agricultural produce of these counties which they are unable to produce so cheaply as the rest of the country?

Mr. ROBERTS: The prices to be paid to the producer for milk in the period of 1st May to 30th September, 1918, were fixed on the recommendation of a Travelling Commission appointed by the Ministry of Food, which included practical agriculturists nominated by the Central Agricultural Advisory Council. This Commission considered that, owing to climatic conditions, milk could be produced more cheaply in the south-western counties than in the rest of England and Wales, and unanimously recommended the adoption of a differential rate. I cannot agree that the fact that it is possible to produce milk cheaply in the south-western counties necessarily implies that other branches of agriculture are less remunerative in this than other districts.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the consumer is to get the
advantage, if the milk is exported from the four south-western counties into other counties, or will it go into the hands of the middlemen?

Mr. ROBERTS: The intention is that the consumer shall get the benefit as far as practicable. We are establishing machinery in order to provide for that purpose.

Mr. LAMBERT: How will milk produced in the four south-western counties be marked supposing it is brought to London?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am advised it is possible, and we are endeavouring to establish machinery in accordance with the recommendations made. The Ministry of Food Vote is to be taken to-morrow, and perhaps this will be one of the questions discussed.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statement is quite flatly contradicted by all the authorities from one at least of the four counties?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware any statement one could make could be flatly con tradicted—

Mr. HURD: By all the authorities.

Mr. ROBERTS: The fact is that the Commissioners have unanimously recommended it.

Mr. HURD: Because they have no knowledge of the local conditions.

UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS, LONDON (RATES).

Mr. GILBERT: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the tube and underground railways in London are charging the maximum passenger rates allowed under their powers, and if they can exceed their maximum rates without the consent of his Department?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Railway (Passenger Fares) Order, 1916, allowed all railway companies in Great Britain to increase their ordinary fares by 50 per cent. I understand, however, that the tube railways have not increased their fares beyond the maximum rates allowed under their previous statutory powers, though
the other underground railways may have done so but without exceeding the limits laid down by the Order. Apart from the Order, no consent of the Board of Trade is necessary to an increase of the fares within these limits.

CLOTHES AND BOOTS (PRICES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the present prices of clothes and boots; whether such prices are justified by the cost of the labour and material required; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to prevent profiteering in these articles of prime human necessity?

Sir A. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Morpeth on 1st May.

BRITISH-AMERICA NICKEL CORPORATION.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: 18.
asked whether, by virtue of the financial assistance by way of advances made to the British-America Nickel Corporation, His Majesty's Government has stipulated any conditions as to control in the conduct of the business of the Corporation; what is the nature and scope of such control; whether it includes the right to His Majesty's Government to appoint representatives on the directorate of the Corporation: if so, whether such representatives have been appointed; what are the names of such representatives; and what were their previous experience and qualifications for the appointment?

Sir A. GEDDES: His Majesty's Government are in a position, should occasion arise, to exercise complete control over the business of the British-America Nickel Corporation, but otherwise no conditions are imposed on the actual conduct of that business. His Majesty's Government are entitled to appoint, and have appointed, representatives to the directorate. The Government's representatives are Mr. W. A. Carlyle, an engineer of high standing, who has rendered valuable service to His Majesty's Government during the War, and Mr. G. T. Milne, who is His Majesty's Senior Trade Commissioner in Canada.

Mr. H. EDWARDS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the sum of $3,000,000, stated to be advanced by His Majesty's Government to the British-America Nickel Corporation, represents the total amount advanced by His Majesty's Government to the corporation; whether the amount so advanced is secured by the issue of 6 per cent. first mortgage fifteen-year gold bonds under a deed of mortgage and trust made between, the British-Amerca Nickel Corporation and the National Trust Company, Limited, as trustee; whether the mortgage deed provides for the payment of $250,000 for the redemption of the bonds during the year ended the 1st February, 1919, and for the payment of $500,000annually for their redemption during subsequent years whether the British-America Nickel Corporation has failed to repay the first-named sum of $250,000, and has obtained the consent of the holders to postpone such repayments; whether His Majesty's Government, as principal holders of these bonds, has agreed to a suspension of the provision for redemption; and, if so, what compensation, if any, has His Majesty's Government received for such accommodation?

Sir A. GEDDES: The statements contained in the first five parts of my hon. Friend's question are correct. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have so far neither received nor asked for any compensation from the British-America Nickel Corporation for the accommodation referred to.

S.S. "ROYAL" (SALE).

Mr. H. EDWARDS: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the ss. "Royal," a British steamer interned at Hamburg during the War, was advertised for sale by auction on the 15th April to a person, or persons, entitled to own a British ship; that the sale was postponed to the 6th May next for the purpose of allowing allied and neutral subjects to bid at the auction; and whether he will issue instructions that this steamer shall only be sold to a person entitled to own a British ship?

Sir A. GEDDES: In view of the extensive repairs required and the length of the time they were estimated to take,
permission was given for allied and neutral subjects to bid at the auction, and it is not proposed to withdraw that permission.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scandinavian owners have been able to build up huge reserves during the War, thereby enabling them to bid at those acutions on more advantageous terms than British owners, and will he issue instructions for this auction only British and allied owners may compete.

Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid my hon. Friend has not heard the special and peculiar reasons operating in this case—the extensive repairs and length of time it will take to carry out the repairs.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this steamer is bought by Scandinavian owners these repairs will go to a foreign company and deprive British labour of work?

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not think the hon. Member need fear about work in the British shipbuilding at the present time.

RAILWAY HOLIDAY TRAFFIC.

Mr. ROWLANDS: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to curtailing holiday traffic in August without loss to the revenue, he will take steps to reduce by one-half during the current month, as also in June and July, the addition of 50 per cent. now charged upon passenger fares?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am not yet in a position to add to the reply given on this subject on Thursday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Scarborough and Whitby and the hon. Member for West Woolwich, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. ROWLANDS: Is there any chance of a decision being arrived at at an early date, as people are wanting to make arrangements for their holidays?

Sir A. GEDDES: I can assure the hon. Gentleman there will be no unnecessary delay.

SOUTHERN ALBANIA.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's
Government that the territory of Southern Albania should be handed over to Greece, as was promised by the ex-Emperor of Germany to the ex-King of Greece?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The future frontiers of Albania are in process of delimitation by the Peace Conference, and I am not in a position to anticipate the conclusions of the delegates.

Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman say that, under whatever circumstances the rights of small nations should be considered in this as in other matters?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am sure the hon. Member will not fail to observe that this is a matter for the Conference, and not a principle strictly for the Foreign Office or His Majesty's Government.

ALLOTMENT HOLDERS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what are the terms of the undertaking with regard to building given, by the owner of the land at Strathbrook Road, Streatham, now held as allotments under the Cultivation of Lands Order, which twenty holders have received notice to vacate at once; whether the Board's circular in regard to tenure, November, 1918, provides that land should be given up only for immediate building; whether he is aware that no active preparations have been made for building, and there can be no immediate building on this land; and whether, seeing that all preparations have been made by the holders for the coming season, and many have incurred expense in anticipation of longer tenure, he will taken action with a view to having these holders made secure in their tenure until at least the end of the season?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is for the Wandsworth Borough Council to satisfy themselves, before giving up possession of the land, that it will be used at once for building purposes. The Board are making inquiries of the borough council, but they have been assured that in every such case, before giving notice to the plot-holders, the council require an undertaking from the owner that he will
use the land for building, or other purposes incidental thereto, as soon as he obtains possession.

Sir K. WOOD: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that 160 allotment-holders cultivating land at Acton Vale have been evicted from their allotments by the Office of Works; that intimation to quit was served on 17th April; that the land was taken, over under the Cultivation of Lands Order; that all preparations have been made for the coming season's crops; and that no notice to take this land was given to the urban district council until after intimation had been given to the allotment-holders; whether this was contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board have made inquiries into this case with the result that the Office of Works are endeavouring to secure an alternative site to avoid disturbing the allotment-holders. As soon as I have definite information on the subject I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the allotment-holders be allowed to remain in possession of the land pending the inquiries of my hon. Friend?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that must be left to the Office of Works.

Sir K. WOOD: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his Department has evicted 160 allotment-holders who were cultivating land at Acton Vale; whether notices to vacate were served on them on 17th April; whether, before such notices to quit were so served, notice of intention to take this land was given to the urban district council, pursuant to the Defence of the Realm Act; whether the owners of the land received any notice before the 17th April; whether the land so taken is estimated at£2,000 an acre for building; and whether there is other suitable and cheaper land available?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): Owing to the representations of the hon. Member, I have been able to arrange for an alternative site to be chosen, and although it is not so ideal, it will avoid the necessity of displacing the allotment-holders.

RE-AFFORESTATION.

Mr. REMER: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether any scheme of re-afforestation is contemplated by the Government; and whether he is aware of the serious position which will be involved by the shortage of timber and pit props if in any future war we should suffer from a blockade of our coasts?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the question addressed to him on the 18th March last by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye. The schemes now under consideration by the Government are designed to safeguard the position contemplated in the latter part of the question.

Mr. REMER: Will this be given very urgent consideration in view of the urgency of the question?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

MACHINE TOOL DEPARTMENT (AMALGAMATION).

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Machine Tool Department of the Ministry of Munitions is still in existence; whether a Machine Tool Department of the new Ministry of Supply has been established; whether the two Departments are to be housed in the same building; what technical qualifications are possessed by the new Controller of Machine Tools; and whether the staff of the old Department are being taken on by the new Department?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr: Hope): The Machine Tool Department of the Ministry of Munitions, which has been greatly reduced owing to post Armistice conditions, has been amalgamated with the remnant of the Department which deals with gauges. It is intended that the combined section shall be housed in one building. The administrative head of the section is an. engineer with large commercial experience. Certain members of
the staffs of both of the old Departments are being retained, in cases where their services can be utilised to advantage.

Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it is intended to maintain this Department?

Mr. HOPE: This is a combined Department for machine tools and gauges, and I imagine it will always be necessary under the Ministry of Supplies to maintain it.

Mr. ROSE: Do I understand that the Ministry of Supply is to be a permanent Department? Is that the intention of the Government?

Mr. HOPE: A Bill will shortly be introduced for that object.

ELECTRIC SUPPLY (SUBSIDY).

Mr. H. GRITTEN: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether any financial assistance has been given to any electricity undertaking, municipal or company-owned, in respect of supply cables and service apparatus, either for the purpose of giving a supply of electric power or of linking up two or more undertakings, since the outbreak of war; and, if so, will he give the names of the undertakings and the respective figures, showing the amount of such financial assistance?

Mr. HOPE: A statement is being prepared, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when it is complete.

Mr. GRITTEN: 67.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any financial assistance has been given to any electricity undertakings, municipal or company-owned, in respect of supply cables and service apparatus in connection with electric power supplies under the scheme of Admiralty extensions in shipbuilding yards since the outbreak of war; and, if so, will he give the names of the undertakings and the respective figures, showing the amount of such financial assistance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. Financial assistance, namely, a lump sum contribution of£2,700, was granted to the Electricity Supply Department of the Dublin Corporation for the supply of additional electric power to the North Wall Shipyards, under the scheme of Admiralty extensions in shipbuilding yards.

Mr. GRITTEN: May I ask why similar financial assistance has not been given to the West Hartlepool Corporation with regard to their extension to Irvine's dockyards?

Colonel WILSON: I have not heard of any application being made from West Hartlepool. If it had been made, it would have received consideration.

Mr. GRITTEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that application has been repeatedly made, first to the Ministry of Munitions and then to the Admiralty, and the West Hartlepool Corporation has been tossed back from one to the other, which I understand is the favourite pastime in the case of officials or Government Departments who do not wish or are unable to give satisfactory answers?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask a question, and not make observations.

BRICKYARDS.

Mr. TALBOT: 38.
asked whether steps can be taken to remove munitions of war from the brickyards which they now monopolise, in order that brick making can be resumed, in view of the shortage now existing in some localities and the urgent need of providing a supply for the carrying out of housing schemes?

Mr. HOPE: The total number of brickyards used by the Ministry for storage, etc., of munitions of war was 64. Of these 36 have been released, 19 are in course of being cleared. I am having inquiries made as to the earliest date at which the remainder can be returned.

STATE MANUFACTORIES.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the number of the State manufactories started since the War now occupied or retained by his Department; whether he will indicate in each case the nature of the work now being carried on; and if be will further inform the House how many factories have been disposed of since the Armistice to private interests?

Mr. HOPE: I am having the information collected for which my hon. Friend asks, and will communicate with, him as soon as the return is complete.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

ARMY HUTS ALLOCATION.

Lieutenant - Colonel BUCKLEY: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will consider the advisability of allocating Army huts to such local authorities as may apply for them for the temporary housing of the working classes, and particularly of those who have served in His Majesty's Forces?

Mr. HOPE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the various answers already given to questions on this subject, the last being to the hon. Member for Wednesbury on 1st May.

COST OF LAND, SOUTHAMPTON.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 36.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Southampton Corporation are about to purchase fifty-four acres of land at Burgess Street for£225 per acre for housing purposes; that only a few years ago the present owner of the land bought it for about£80 per acre; and whether he can take any action to prevent the purchase of this land at such an increase in the price?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): The Local Government Board have received an application from the corporation for sanction for a loan for the purchase of the land to which the hon. Member refers and have directed a local inquiry to be held into the application. The Board have not at the present time any information with regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, but the inspector has been asked to make inquiries on this point, and in accordance with the usual practice a valuation of the land will be obtained before the application for sanction is dealt with.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is there anything in the Housing Bill or in the Acquisition of Land Bill to prevent such excessive prices as that being charged?

Major ASTOR: I am only responsible for the Housing Bill. Of course the Local Government Board inspector before giving sanction to any proposal would inquire into the question of the acquisition of the land.

BLIND (ASSISTANCE TO PERSONS AFFLICTED).

Sir J. D. REES: 37.
asked whether a decision has been reached as regards the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee for the assistance of the blind, and the provision of funds for carrying such schemes as they recommend into effect?

Major ASTOR: The Advisory Committee are conferring to-day with the Department with a view to working out a practicable scheme for submission to the Treasury to assist the blind in various ways.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (CINEMATOGRAPH INSTRUCTION).

Colonel THORNE: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mr. H. Lewsley, of 1, Conway Street, Nottingham, was approached by the Advisory Committee for the tuition of discharged soldiers and sailors as cinematograph operatives, for which he was to receive 2s. 6d. per hour along with others; that he was engaged to take on the work for six months; that all the invoices, etc., have been sent to Mr. Thatcher, manager. Labour Exchange, Nottingham, who was the secretary of the Advisory Committee; that the amount due to all concerned is upwards of£200; and that up to the present time the money is still owing to the man in question; and if he will take action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir J. Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am making enquiries, and will let the hon. and gallant Member know the result as soon as possible.

WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES (STAFF APPOINTMENTS).

Sir F. HALL: 57.
asked the Pensions Minister if his attention has been called to recent staff appointments by war pensions committees in which it would appear that sufficient effort has not been made to secure soldiers, particularly those with active service records and who have been incapacitated as a result; if such appointments are subject to confirmation by his
Department; and, if not, whether he will consider as to taking suitable action to secure effective control in the matter?

Sir J. CRAIG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Regulations made under the Administrative Provisions Act of 1918 provide that the appointment of all principal officers shall be subject to my right hon. Friend's approval. In cases such as those to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, approval is withheld and the Committee are asked to make a further selection. Where they are unable to do so the Ministry offers to supply them with the names of ex-service candidates having proper qualifications.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask if, under the circumstances, he will be kind enough to ask the Department to get in touch with the Peterborough War Pensions Committee in order that the assistance of the War Pensions Department may be utilised?

Sir J. CRAIG: We offer to all the local war pensions committees assistance in every possible way to obtain ex-Service men, and if possible disabled and discharged officers and men, for the purpose of filling these positions. We have established at the Ministry a small training school for the purpose of keeping at hand a certain number of discharged and disabled officers and men who will be able to take offers of the kind in an emergency.

Sir F. HALL: It is in consequence of that I ventured to ask the question.

Sir J. CRAIG: Probably, the publicity given, to this question will be sufficient.

ROYAL ENGINEERS, K COMPANY.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the findings of the Holt Committee, he can now state that services in the K Company, Royal Engineers, will count for civil pensions?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): No, Sir. As explained in answer to previous questions the Treasury are not prepared to accept this recommendation

Brigadier-General-CROFT: Is the right ton. Gentleman aware of the fact that these men were specially urged to undertake service by the Post Office, and under these circumstances will he reconsider the case?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am familiar with the case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and I have had it frequently under review, and it might be of interest to him, if he would not mind the trouble, to look at the Debate on the 12th June last year, the last occasion on which this subject was raised in this House, and see what passed between me and Mr. Holt, who was the Chairman of the Committee.

WAR GRATUITIES.

Major CAYZER: 68.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to state whether a decision has yet been arrived at as to the position of officers serving under Agreement T. 124 in respect to war gratuity; and, if not, whether he can promise to make an early announcement on the subject, having in view that considerable dissatisfaction on account of the delay exists amongst officers serving under this agreement?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on Thursday last, that naval officers serving under the Agreement referred to will receive a discharge gratuity under the same conditions and at the same rates as General Service Executive Royal Naval Reserve officers of relative rank.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the great discrepancy between the gratuities awarded to Regular officers as compared with those given to temporary, Special Reserve, or Territorial officers, the figures being: For captains, Regulars£93, others£253; brigade majors, Regulars£93, others£500; brigadier-generals, Regulars£236, others£1,000; and whether he will reconsider the matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 24th March last to a similar question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirrall.

R.E. OFFICERS' WIDOWS (INDIAN SERVICE).

Mr. F. C THOMSON: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War why the widows of Royal Engineer officers who had elected for permanent Indian service and who were in all respects, while alive, treated in the same way as officers of the Indian
Army, are not eligible for alternative pensions, based on actual pay received in India, in the same way as the widows of Indian Army officers?

Mr. FORSTER: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions regarding the matter raised in this question.

TOTTENHAM EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE

Major PRESCOTT: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the total number of unemployed persons registered on the books of the Tottenham Unemployment Exchange during the three months ending March of the present year, the total percentage of unemployed persons placed in employment by the Exchange within the period referred to, the total cost to the Ministry for this period of all charges and administrative expenses relating to this Exchange; and the figures as to registered unemployed persons in Tottenham at the present time?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): During the three months to 11th April, 1919, 19,657 applications for work were registered at the Tottenham Exchange. In the figures given, however, second and subsequent applications of the same individual are counted separately, and therefore it would be erroneous to take these figures as representing that number of people; 7,865 of these applications were withdrawn or lapsed, 1,786 applicants were placed in employment. The total cost of the Exchange during the three months in question, including all charges and administrative expenses, was approximately£3,600. The total number of persons registered at the Tottenham Exchange on 25th April was 11,674.

Major PRESCOTT: What steps are being taken by the Ministry of Labour to mitigate the very serious position with regard to unemployment at Tottenham?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think that any special steps are being taken at Tottenham which are not being taken in every part of the country.

ROAD BOARD OPERATIONS.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the
large number of persons drawing out-of-work pay, he will discuss with the Road Board the practicability of finding employment for some of them in concert with the highway authorities upon road work of a character on which a large percentage of unskilled labour can be employed, such as patching, sweeping, and tarring the roads through villages on secondary and minor roads suffering from the dust nuisance, opening up the view at dangerous corners, cleaning out ditches, widening narrow carriage-ways, making footpaths by the side of existing roads, cutting, pruning, removing, or grubbing up hedges, overhanging trees, which obscure the view or prevent light and air from reaching the road, and other urgent and desirable road work which requires to be done in all parts of the country, in addition to the road programme for 1919–20 which has already been approved by the Government?

Sir R. HORNE: I have already been in communication with the Road Board with a view to the provision of employment on the roads of the country. The Grants now in process of distribution by the Road Board, and the expenditure by highway authorities out of local rates, will provide a considerable amount of employment throughout the country on work of the character mentioned in the question. The Grants for these purposes and for repair of the main roads amount to over£16,300,000. The Board have communicated with the authorities responsible for schemes already approved, pointing out that they are particularly anxious that these works; may be put in hand at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that none of these works are yet in hand, that, the roads are in a very bad condition, and that it is now six months since the Armistice was signed?

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot add anything: to what I have said. I have been pressing on the matter.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman press it on again?

Colonel THORNE: How many local authorities have been given sums of money by the Local Government Board for the purpose of carrying on this work?

Sir R. HORNE: I should be required to answer for every Department of the Government if I could answer that question.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is there no power to get the money spent as soon as possible?

Sir R. HORNE: The power is in the hands of the Road Board.

Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot the Road Board be got to act?

Mr. JOHN JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Circular has been issued by the Local Government Board, informing local authorities that they cannot get money from the Public Works Commissioners, but that they have got to float local loans, and that the difficulty of raising money locally at present is absolutely stopping public works?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of that, I shall be very glad to inquire.

Captain W. BENN: What other Department than that of the right hon. Gentleman represents the Road Board in this House?

Sir R. HORNE: In no sense do I represent the Road Board.

Captain BENN: Who does?

OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

Colonel THORNE: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Miss Nellie Featherbridge, aged under seventeen years, made a claim for donation benefit at the Warrington Labour Exchange on or about the 1st March; that she was asked by the Employment Exchange officer to undertake night work at the British Aluminium Company, Limited, which was refused; if he is aware that the Court of Referees refused her claim on the ground that the Factory Acts in respect to the employment of young persons on night work were suspended during the War period, and if he will take action with a view to restoring donation benefit to Miss Featherbridge?

Sir R. HORNE: The claim to out-of-work donation in this case was disallowed by the Court of Referees on the ground that the applicant had refused an offer of suitable employment. On the facts stated in the question I am of opinion that the
case requires further consideration, and it is being referred to the Umpire for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (PAY AND PENSIONS).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 43.
asked what becomes of the unemployment contributions paid by hired men in the Royal dockyards when these men are established; and are the contributions they have paid returned to them?

Sir R. HORNE: The contributions remain credited to his personal account and are available for payment of unemployment benefit should he at any time, through change of occupation, or for any other reason, become eligible for same.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would never become eligible?

Sir R. HORNE: He would not become eligible so long as he is on the establishment, but if he comes off the establishment and require it he then does get it.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an established man never comes off the establishment, but receives a pension?

Sir R. HORNE: No; I am not aware of that.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 65.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, now that it has been decided that men in the Royal dockyards are to receive the 12½per cent. on the hired rate of pay, he can say if this Regulation will be retrospective?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 66.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say if pensioners from the Royal dockyards are pensioned on established or hired pay?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The pensions of dockyard workmen are assessed upon established rates of pay.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think it is not inequitable to base their pensions on established rather than on hired pay.

WAR DECORATIONS.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 61.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that those Army non-commissioned officers who joined as instructors to the New Armies, and who trained men during the War, have been promised that their claims to the award of a medal for service would not be overlooked; and if he can promise the same as regards the Royal Navy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. Their claims will not be overlooked.

WAR GRATUITIES.

Sir B. FALLE: 62.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the War gratuities due to naval officers are paid at once; if such gratuity has been earned and should be paid instead of being doled out in circumstances of proved necessity; and if the War gratuity will carry interest at the new rate from the date it is due?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The War gratuities to officers of the permanent Naval Service still serving are not due until the prescribed terminating date of the qualifying war period has been reached. Mean while, of course, increments of war gratuity are being earned. In order, however, to meet special cases, the Board have approved of advances being made. On the prescribed terminating date being reached, the gratuities to officers serving will at once be paid, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

ENGINE ROOM PERSONNEL (PAY).

Sir B. FALLE: 63.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the engine-room personnel, which form about 35 per cent. of the total personnel of the Navy, have any representatives on the Jerram Committee dealing with the pay of the lower deck, or on the Halsey Committee dealing with the pay of officers; if so, can the ranks of these representatives be given, and, if the engine-room personnel is not directly represented on these committees, can any information be given as to the methods by which considerate treatment for them can be assured?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No engineer officer was included in either of these Committees. It was realised when the Committees were set up that the inclusion of officers directly representing the different branches was impracticable.
In the case of the Jerram Committee, however, the men's advisory representatives associated with the Committee included a representative of the engine room, artificers and a representative of the mechanicians; in addition to which the views of the engine room personnel, in common with those of all other classes, were represented very fully by witnesses interviewed at the ports.
In the case of the Halsey Committee, representative officers of all branches have given evidence before the Committee, and, in addition, a general invitation was issued to officers in home waters wishing to express individual views to forward them to the Committee for consideration, and many such communications have been received.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information as to the Jerram Committee?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have already said we have every expectation that the decision will be taken this week. That was said last week.

JERRAM COMMITTEE.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 64.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the event of his not being able to publish the Report of the Jerram Committee, together with the evidence taken, he will consider the advisability of publishing the Committee's recommendations at the same time that he publishes the decisions of the War Cabinet?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No doubt my hon. Friend will have noted the reply given on Thursday last that it has been decided by the Board to lay a Parliamentary Paper, which will give the information desired.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what day this week the Jerram Committee will report and the decisions will be circulated?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a matter in the hands of the War Cabinet, and I cannot say what day.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will it be before the week end, while the House is sitting?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I very much hope so.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That is to say, we shall get it before next Thursday?

WHISKY AND BEER SUPPLIES.

Major NEWMAN: 44.
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction at the shortage of whisky and the poor quality and high prices for beer charged to the public; whether he is aware that the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) is being held responsible in this matter by the public; and is he able to say that shortage of barley, malt, and hops is responsible for the shortage and high prices and not a desire on the part of the Liquor Control Board to enforce sobriety by Order in Council?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the existence of dissatisfaction in regard to the conditions necessarily governing the supplies of beer and spirits. It is hoped, however, that the recent decisions of the Cabinet to increase the quantities available for consumption will go a considerable way towards removing this feeling. I have no information to the effect stated in the second part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, the shortage of materials was naturally the determining factor in deciding the quantity which could be produced and the price was affected by the reduced output permitted and by the increase in duty.

Major NEWMAN: Given a normal supply of barley and hops, cannot we have a normal supply of whisky and beer to drink?

Mr. REMER: When will the Central Liquor Control Board be abolished altogether?

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that despite the shortage we are at present exporting whisky in large quantities?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am not aware of that. I have no responsibility for nor do I exercise any control over the Liquor Control Board.

Mr. REMER: Which Government Department has any control over the Central Liquor Control Board?

Mr. ROBERTS: I think that it is the Ministry of Munitions.

Colonel THORNE: 53.
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware that Messrs. Bullock, Lad, and Company still refuse to supply the wine and spirit merchants with bulk whisky; if he is aware that the firm in question is supplying the
whisky in bottle in bond because of the extra profit derived from selling the whisky in the bottle; if he can state whether he will issue a compulsory sales, order for the purpose of making the distillers supply their merchants with the proper supply, and if he intends' taking, any action in the matter?

Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As I stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 14th April, I am advised that the firm in question have complied with their obligations, either by delivering supplies or giving certificates which may be presented to another trader, for the quantity which they fail to supply. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member will supply me with specific cases, I shall be very glad to have them investigated.

Colonel THORNE: 54.
asked the Food Controller if he is aware that Mr. F. A. Lindsay, of 3, St. John's Place, Perth, wholesale whisky merchant, has a large quantity of American whisky which has been paid for some considerable time ago, but on account of the present prohibition of import restrictions he is unable to import the whisky; and if he will allow the importation of Canadian and American whiskies in consequence of the shortage in this country?

Sir A. GEDDES: On the advice of the Imports Consultative Council I have decided that the importation of Canadian whisky shall be freely permitted and the importation of American whisky shall be permitted if it has been paid for previous to 1st January, 1919. It has been explained to Mr. Lindsay, in a personal interview, that he has to prove that he paid for the whisky before 1st January, 1919. It is understood that he is taking steps to comply with this requirement, and if he can do so he will be allowed to import the whisky.

LICENSED PREMISES (CONTROL).

Major NEWMAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended during the present Session to introduce legislation dealing with the hours of opening of licensed premises and kindred matters, and will he give the approximate date on which the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) will be dissolved?

The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his Budget speech on Wednesday last. In the meantime I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Major NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question?

Mr. SHORTT: I can make no further statement.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD.

Major HENNESSY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Agricultural Wages Board, a body appointed during wartime and for purely war purposes, does not adequately represent the farmers' interests, he will consider the advisability of having it abolished forth with and appointing a new Board in its place consisting of farmers, smallholders, and labourers, for the purpose of regulating wages and hours?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Agricultural Wages Board was established by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, after consultation with the Minister of Labour, in accordance with the provisions of the Corn Production Act. In the constitution of the Board the representation of farmers' and labourers' interests is equally, and adequately, provided for.

RECONSTRUCTION (AMERICAN CONTRACTS).

Lieutenant - Colonel LOWTHER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to lay upon the Table of the House any records of the factories, works, mines, concessions, businesses, and contracts obtained since the Armistice by American contractors and concessionaires, outside their own country, but more particularly in Europe; and, if not, whether he will at once appoint a committee to examine the whole subject?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Department of Overseas Trade (Development and Intelligence) watches with great interest all developments of American and other foreign business in countries abroad, but no complete records of the nature indi-
cated in the hon. and gallant Member's question can be laid upon the Table. I am, however, calling for detailed reports on the subject.

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Will the Government consider the advisability of establishing a Works Committee to consider the best ways and means for securing to British enterprise and British labour a fair share of the mammoth reconstruction works necessitated by the War.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will gladly submit that suggestion to the proper authority.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman at the same time submit the suggestion that in order to secure a proper share of that trade we ought immediately to appoint some one besides the President of the Board of Trade in order to see that we get it?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that question ought to be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Lieutenant-Colonel LOWTHER: Will the hon. Gentleman really look into the matter at once as it is one of great importance?

PROPAGANDA (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, since the abolition of the Ministry of Information, propaganda work in foreign countries is still being carried on, and, if so, by what Department; whether he is aware that In North and South America German propaganda work is now being carried on with, if possible, more energy than during the War; and whether he can state what steps are being taken by England to counteract this attempt by Germany to capture post-war trade?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Propaganda in foreign countries is undertaken by the Foreign Office.
As to the rest of the question, I am aware of the activities referred to, though I am not sure that I should agree with the hon. Member's description of them as conducted with even more energy than during the period of hostilities. They have not escaped the notice of the Government,
and I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to the hon. Member for Islington (S.) on 27th February, and the hon. Member for Acton on 6th March.

Mr. HIGHAM: Are we to understand that the Ministry of Information no longer exists?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, that is so.

DUMPING.

Mr. ALEXANDER RICHARDSON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the Government promise to introduce a Bill for the prevention of dumping, he will furnish a statement giving the principal provisions of the laws or regulations in force in our Dominions and Colonies and in foreign countries for the prevention of dumping?

Sir A. GEDDES: A summary statement of the legislative provisions in force in Canada, the Union of South Africa, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the United States will be issued as a White Paper at an early date.

POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH FACILITIES (DEPTFORD).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General whether further consideration has been given to the representations of the Deptford Borough Council regarding the need for increasing the existing postal and telegraph facilities in that district; and, if so, will he state the result?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The inquiries in the matter to which the hon. Member refers are not yet complete, but there will be no avoidable delay in coming to a decision, and the result will be communicated to the borough council as soon as possible.

TELEGRAMS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).

Mr. LYNN: 59.
asked, the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of telegrams transmitted to the Post Office for Government Departments in January, February, and March, 1914, 1918, and 1919, respectively; will he say whether the great
delay being suffered by public and Press telegrams is due to the excessive total of such Government telegrams; and will he take effective measures materially to reduce the latter?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The numbers of Government telegrams during the months referred to are:

1914
1918
1919


January
43,635
848,641
987,807


February
44,622
798,045
875,000


March
57,549
977,913
825,000

The figures for February and March 1919, are estimates, as actual figures are not yet available. The delay incurred by telegraph traffic is due partly to the number of Government telegrams, and partly to the number of skilled telegraphists serving with the Colours who were not demobilised; but the position is now somewhat better as the number of Government telegrams is being reduced, and more telegraphists have returned to duty. I have recently again urged Government Departments to restrict official telegrams within the narrowest possible limits.

Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which Department is the worst?

Mr. LYNN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government Departments are in the habit of sending messages by telegram which could be sent by messenger in five minutes?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I could not say exactly as to the number of minutes, but I am afraid some of them are guilty of such practices.

Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main telegraph wire from London to Dublin is an overhead one along the Welsh coast, and that it has been constantly blown down, and will he see that there is an underground wire put up instead?

Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to revert to the custom of the old days that telegrams in public offices were not permitted except with the sanction of some higher officer of the Department?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond), I am afraid that like many others that wire has been blown down two or three times. The question of whether the line should be put underground is under considera-
tion. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), the telegrams are too numerous to make it practicable for the head of the Department to sanction each one of them.

Sir H. CRAIK: Was it not the constant habit of public offices before the War to require such sanction?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid I cannot answer that.

Mr. ROSE: May I ask what functions, if any, belong to the heads of the Departments?

MEDAL AWARDS (NEW ARMIES).

Mr. JOHN JONES: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a 1914 star with rosette and also a 1914–15 star have been awarded, he will consider the advisability of awarding a 1916 Somme fighting star for the New Armies which were raised by voluntary methods and proved their value against the enemy, as borne out in the dispatch of the Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force?

Mr. FORSTER: It is considered that the proposed medal awards, the conditions of which will be published shortly, will offer due recognition for the services rendered by the men to whom the hon. Member refers.

AGRICULTURAL WORK (WITH-DRAWAL OF SOLDIERS).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an Order has been issued to soldiers attached to agricultural companies and who are engaged on agricultural work to report at their centre within the next fortnight; whether he is aware that, owing to weather conditions, farmers have been unable to cultivate their land, and that to withdraw these men now will be to deprive them of absolutely essential labour; and whether, in view of protests made by war agricultural executive committees and farmers, he will take immediate steps to cancel the calling-up notices and permit the men to continue to work on the land?

Mr. FORSTER: The withdrawal of soldiers employed on agriculture has been postponed for fourteen days in accord-
ance with the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave in Debate on Tuesday last. My right hon. Friend has also given instructions for the retention on agriculture of 10 per cent. of the total number of men in and attached to agricultural companies now engaged in work on the land.

Mr. LAMBERT: How many men does that apply to?

Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I could not say.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: How are these 10 per cent. to be selected?

Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot answer details without notice. My right hon. Friend had intended to answer this question himself, but he is unavoidably detained. I communicated with him by telephone, but I am not in a position to stand a cross-examination.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why Ministers are everywhere but at the House of Commons at Question Time?

Mr. FORSTER: Ministers have other duties besides those in this House.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is he aware that the chief function of a Minister is to come here to the House of Commons at Question Time?

POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS, ARCHANGEL.

Captain W. BENN: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether parcels and letters may be sent to the soldiers at Archangel, and, if not, for what reason?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Parcels and letters may be sent to the troops at Archangel. The acceptance of parcels was stopped when Archangel was icebound and navigation ceased, but they have again been accepted since the 25th of March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

ARMY SERVICE CORPS.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for War if there is any reason why Driver James Hicks, No. 123,928, Army Service Corps, of A.P.O.,
S. 20, British Epeditionary Force, France, should not be demobilised, seeing that he joined up in 1915 and is now over fifty years of age?

Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries will be made in this case, and I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result as soon as possible.

MILITARY OCCUPATION OF HOUSES, EAST COAST.

Commander KING: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that hardship and distress is being imposed upon owners of house property recently occupied by troops on the East Coast of England by the delay in the settlement of their claims for dilapidation caused by such occupation and by the inadequate nature of the amounts usually offered in settlement; and whether he will arrange for the payment in full of all proved claims to be expedited, in view of the fact that many of the claimants are dependent on the letting of furnished rooms or houses for their livelihood and cannot afford to carry out the necessary repairs until their claims are paid?

Mr. FORSTER: A number of complaints on this subject have been received and have been engaging the attention of the Department. I am not aware that in general there is undue delay in settling premises for dilapidations in cases where premises are hired under agreements. Steps were taken some time ago to increase the staff engaged locally in dealing with such claims, and I understand that they are keeping pace with the work. In cases, however, where the premises are occupied under the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations, there has, unfortunately, been some delay; but this is due to the refusal of many of the owners to recognise the jurisdiction of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, to whom all claims arising out of military occupation have to be submitted. I am considering what means can be devised to meet the difficult situation thus created and for minimising any hardship or inconvenience to which the owners may be subjected in consequence of their refusal. I hope that the Department may very shortly be in a position to deal with outstanding claims to everybody's satisfaction. I cannot accept the suggestion that the amounts offered in settlement are usually inadequate.

Commander KING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers offers of 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. as being adequate?

Mr. FORSTER: That must depend upon the circumstances of the case.

Commander KING: I mean 50 per cent. of the amount actually expended in carrying out repairs?

Mr. FORSTER: That obviously must depend on the circumstances, and I cannot give a general answer.

TROOPS FOR RUSSIA.

Mr. MOSLEY: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men over forty-one years of age who are now on leave in this country are under orders to return to Russia at the expiration of their leave; whether this represents the considered policy of the War Office; and, if not, whether he will order the demobilisation of these men and the retention of younger men to take their place?

Mr. FORSTER: As active operations are still in progress in Russia, all men on leave from that theatre must return on the expiration of their leave.

Lieutenant - Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: How does that square with the declaration of the Secretary of State for War that no man shall be sent to Russia except voluntarily?

Mr. FORSTER: I do not see that it cuts across that at all. It does not seem to me to matter whether he is a conscript or volunteer. The question is whether he is or is not on leave.

Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is it a fact that men over forty-one years of age are being compelled, when home on leave, to return to Russia?

Mr. FORSTER: Men serving in Russia volunteer to go there. They come back to this country from time to time on leave. Obviously it is their business to go back at the expiration of their leave.

Major CAYZER: Will men over thirty-seven years of age have to go back to Russian in order to be demobilised?

Mr. FORSTER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to forget that these men are volunteers.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what they are doing in Russia at all?

ARMY OFFICERS' PENSIONS.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 78 and 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether, in view of the general rise in wages and salaries and the consequent increase in the cost of living, steps have been taken proportionately to raise the pensions of Regular officers of the old Army on compulsory retirement under the age clause of the Royal Warrant; (2) whether, in view of the large number of Regular officers of the old Army who are being retired compulsorily for age now that peace is in sight, he will assure the House that immediate steps will be taken to bring the pensions of these officers to the equivalent value, at least, of the year in which they were originally sanctioned?

Mr. FORSTER: The whole subject of pensions is being most carefully considered.

General CROFT: In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the rate of pensions is practically the same to-day as it was at the time of the Battle of Waterloo?

Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot go into that.

SOLDIERS ACCOMMODATION (LONDON).

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that great difficulty is experienced by soldiers passing through London, to and from leave or were in course of being demobilised, in obtaining comfortable accommodation; if he will state what are the facilities which exist in this respect, and what steps are taken to acquaint the men and the units to which they belong of the arrangements?

Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 12th March to a similar question put by the hon. Member for East Islington.
Ample and comfortable accommodation for all ranks passing through London is provided by the military authorities, in conjunction with voluntary organisations. This accommodation consists of clubs and hostels, where officers and men are provided with bed and breakfast. Notices are posted at all the large railway stations throughout Great Britain and Ireland, informing all concerned of the existence of this accommodation.
In addition to notices at all London railway termini there are guides, who give their services voluntarily, to direct soldiers to the hostels and inform them of their existence. Motor transport to convey the men to the accommodation is also provided by both voluntary agencies and the War Department. A central bureau co-ordinates the allotment of parties to the various hostels. The largest number of soldiers who have been accommodated on any one night is 17,000.
If my hon. and gallant Friend, or any other Members of the House who are interested in this subject, would like to see something of what is being done, I would invite them to pay a visit to the Buckingham Palace Hotel, which is one of the hostels mentioned and is close at hand. They will then obtain a good idea of our efforts in this direction.

MECHANICAL TRANSPORT DEPOT, KEMPTON PARK.

Sir F. HALL: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of motor vehicles at the transport depot at Kempton Park at the date of the signing of the Armistice, and the number now; whether for some time such vehicles have remained in the open without adequate protection and subject to serious depreciation; why steps have not been taken to arrange for the sale of the vehicles no longer required for military use in view of the demand for such vehicles and the loss incurred in postponing the sale, through the vehicles deteriorating in value; and what payment is being made for the use of the land occupied by the depot and when it is proposed to terminate the tenancy?

Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to a reply which I gave to a similar question relating to motor cars asked by the hon. Member for South Down, on 17th March. The total number of
vehicles of all kinds at the Mechanical Transport Depot, Kempton Park, at the date of the signing of the Armistice was 16,931. The number now is 13,177. Many of these vehicles have of necessity remained in the open, owing to the absence of covered accommodation. Depreciation is undoubtedly taking place, but where possible it is reduced to a minimum by the use of tarpaulins and the greasing of vulnerable parts. The War Office have notified large numbers of vehicles to the Disposal Board of the Ministry of Munitions as available for sale, and sales have been taking place now for Home time at as frequent intervals as possible. Payment for the use of the land and buildings is now being made at the rate of£1,700 per annum, inclusive of rates and taxes, as from the 1st October, 1915, in accordance with an award of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. A further claim for expenses incurred from the said date has been recently submitted in consequence of a later ruling by the Commission in a similar case, but the investigation of the figures has not yet been completed. The exact date of the termination of the tenancy cannot at present be stated.

Sir F. HALL: Taking into consideration the large number of men that must be employed on greasing these vulnerable parts, and in looking after tarpaulins, would it not be to the interest of the War Office and the country to get rid of these motor lorries with the least possible delay?

Mr. FORSTER: Yes; and, as I said in my answer, we have notified the Ministry of Munitions that there are large numbers for sale.

Sir F. HALL: Are the Ministry of Munitions holding them up?

Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question to the Minister of Munitions.

Sir F. HALL: I certainly will.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at the present rate of sale, it will take eight years to dispose of all these motor vehicles?

Mr. FORSTER: I do not think it will take so long as that.

Mr. MacVEAGH: It would at the present rate.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that all these cars shall be sold by auction singly?

Mr. FORSTER: I think they are sold by auction. The arrangements for the disposal of these cars are in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions.

IRELAND (PASSPORTS TO AMERICANS).

Mr. RONALD McNEILL (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary, as acting Leader of the House, whether certain persons of American nationality have been given passports from Paris to Ireland for the purpose of unofficial political action; whether they have declared that their object is to confer with President de Valera for the purpose of securing international recognition of an Irish Republic at the Peace Conference; whether this object was known to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when the passports were issued; whether these men are accredited by the American Government; if not, what are their credentials, and whom do they represent; whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to receive these American gentleman on their return to Paris; and, if so, whether he has considered the effect likely to be produced in Ireland by foreign interference with the domestic affairs of another country and by his patronage of revolutionary propaganda?

Mr. SHORTT: This question was put into my hand just as I came into the House, and I regret to say I have not had time yet to make all the detailed and close inquiry necessary to answer it.

Mr. McNEILL: When will any member of the Government be in a position to deal with an important matter of this kind in the House?

Mr. SHORTT: It will take about a week to make the necessary inquiries.

Mr. DEVLIN: How long will the Peace Conference last?

REVOLUTION IN HUNGARY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice): asked the Foreign Secretary whether he can give the House any information as to
the alleged suppression by Allied troops of the revolutionary Government in Hungary, and whether Count Apponyi was the Allied nominee for head of the new counter-revolutionary Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that no official information on these reported events has yet been received at the Foreign Office.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain an answer to this question from Paris, if necessary; and if I put down a question on Thursday next, will he be able to give me a more explicit answer about this assassination of the revolution in Hungary?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have already begun to make inquiries, and I hope to have the information by Thursday.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to say when the Second Reading of the Irish Housing Bill will be taken?

Mr. SHORTT: I am sorry I cannot answer that.

Captain REDMOND: Is there any Irish Minister here who is able to answer such questions I Where is the Chief Secretary?

CITY AND METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Mr. BILLING (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at a, mass demonstration of the City and Metropolitan Police at Trafalgar Square yesterday, and what action, if any, he proposes to take?

Mr. SHORTT: I have had no notice at all of any question of this kind.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a telegram containing the question was sent to him at nine o'clock this morning? If he has not received it, is it not a direct reflection upon the Post Office authorities; and, in any event, is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman was present at the meeting yesterday and was an interested spectator, and, having regard—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is getting out of order.

Mr. BILLING: Then, may I, Mr. Speaker, ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to put down the Home Office Vote at an early date, to enable this House to debate the crisis which has arisen in the Police Force of the City and Metropolis?

Mr. SHORTT: There is no such thing as a crisis at the present time in the police force.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a unanimous resolution wag passed yesterday demanding the dismissal of General Sir Nevil Macready, and does he propose to take any official cognisance of that?

Mr. SHORTT: No, certainly not!

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which the hon. Gentleman should give notice.

Mr. BILLING: I beg, Sir, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, to call attention to a matter of urgent public importance—that is, the administration of General Sir Nevil Macready, the Chief Commissioner of Police.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that statement of the hon. Gentleman is not sufficiently definite. Any hon. Member desiring to move the Adjournment of the House can only do so by calling attention to a definite matter. The administration of Sir Nevil Macready is carried over a considerable number of subjects. The hon. Member must make his proposal more definite.

Mr. BILLING: Is it not the fact, Sir, that in the Motion which I handed to you, and which reads, "to call attention to the demonstration of the police yesterday afternoon," which is a matter of urgent public importance, that, on your own suggestion, I omitted that part from my paper, because, as you said, it had no bearing on the question? Now it would appear that if I had left these words in I would have been in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He would still have been out of order. The paper he handed to me is not in the terms he has just read. What it said was, "to call attention to the resolution passed at a mass meeting of the City and Metropolitan Police at Trafalgar Square," for which, of course, the Govern-
ment is not in any way responsible. It is not open for an hon. Member of this House to call attention to that fact. It does not concern either the House or the Government. But the hon. Gentleman went on to say further in his Notice, "to call attention to the administration of General Sir Nevil Macready, the Chief Commissioner of Police." I took exception to that on the ground that it was indefinite, and that in order to ask leave to move Adjournment of the House the matter must be in relation to some definite subject.

Mr. BILLING: Might I ask you, Sir, having regard to the critical position of the police, whether I would be in order, on your ruling, to ask leave to-morrow to move the Adjournment of the House? By then I might be able to take Parliamentary advice so that no technicality will stand between myself and a matter of urgent public importance?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is always open to an hon. Member to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House as long as the matter is one urgently important. The hon. Member can move it to-morrow, or the next day, or indeed any day; but I hope when he brings the matter up again he will define more closely the exact matter he wishes to raise.

Colonel THORNE: I understood the Home Secretary to say that there was no crisis of any sort in the Metropolitan Police Force. Surely he knows there is a great deal of discontent—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot deal with this matter now in debate. We are still in Question Time.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask if the Post master-General can give any explanation as to whether or not the statement is true that a telegram which was sent at 9 o'clock in the morning—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question too.

SUPPLY (STANDING COMMITTEE C).

Mr. MACMASTER: reported from Standing Committee C that they had agreed to the following Resolution:—

Civil Services Estimates, 1919–20.

Class I.

"That a sum, not exceeding£117,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum
necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

PREVENTION OF ANTHRAX [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses that may be incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to control the importation of goods infected or likely to be infected with anthrax, and to provide for the disinfection of any such goods—(King's Recommendation signified)—Tomorrow—[Mr. Shortt.]

BILL PRESENTED.

DISABLED MEN (FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT) BILL,—"to enable arrangements to be made as to employers' liability to pay compensation in respect of men disabled by service in His Majesty's forces during the present War with a view to facilitating their employment," presented by Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I feel I am absolved from the necessity of unduly pressing either the urgency or the importance of the housing problem. Now that the clangour of warfare has died away, other sounds and other voices are making themselves heard. They remind us that there are enemies to be conquered at home as well as in the field—that waste, wretchedness and want are foes as insidious and formidable in their way as was the Prussian Army. Of these voices none is more insistent and compelling than that which urges the claim—I should rather call it the right—of the people of this country to healthy houses worthy of the name of homes. If the danger and disgrace of our housing conditions in the past was unknown, or, at any rate, unappreciated, then I think the Report of the Royal Commission on. Housing must have served to establish both beyond all challenge and all controversy. I desire, if I may, in passing, to pay a warm, if a tardy tribute to the wholly admirable manner in which that Commission discharged its duty. The Report is one of the most comprehensive, one of the most thorough, and one of the most impressive State documents which has ever been penned. My right hon. Friend opposite knows well the work of the chairman and the secretary of that Commission. While not derogating from the work of any single member of the Commission, a special meed of thanks, I think, is due to those two gentlemen. At the same time, the Report is such a damning indictment of the existing state of matters that one can only wonder that it was tolerated, or indeed, I had almost said accepted, for so long by a country which claims to be civilised and religious.
4.0 P.M.
The Report, no doubt, is familiar to hon. Members of the House, and, in particular, to the Scottish Members. I want, however, to say one or two things about it before I pass from it. It reveals a condition of
things which is at once a menace to health and an affront to decency. Its findings are startling, and indeed well-nigh incredible. It finds, for example, that in 1911 there were 129,730 one-roomed houses in Scotland—in other words, 12.8 per cent. of the total number of houses there, and 439,354 two-roomed houses, or, in other words, 40.4 per cent. of the total number of houses. Of the population 8.4 per cent. dwelt in one-roomed houses, and 39.3 per cent. in two-roomed houses, as against 1.3 per cent. and 5.8 per cent. respectively in England. In many of these houses there was neither sculleries, sanitary conveniences nor water. The situation is bad enough under normal conditions. What, however, it must be in child-birth, in illness, and in death hon. Members can no doubt figure for themselves. As might be expected, the death-rate in these houses is extremely high. In one-roomed houses children under one year old die at the rate of 210 per 1,000, and in two-roomed houses at the rate of 164 per 1,000. Of the existing one-roomed houses in Scotland, 50 per cent.—so the Commission tell us—are unfit for habitation, and of two-roomed houses 15 per cent. are unfit for habitation. Two hundred and thirty-six thousand new houses, the Commission say, are to-day required in Scotland. It must be added that the inquiry of the Commission was largely a pre-war inquiry, and that the conditions are infinitely worse to-day than at the date when the Commission reported.
We must all agree that, vast though the problem is, delay in tackling it can neither be excused nor defended. This Bill makes an honest attempt to grapple with the problem. Though it does not embody all the recommendations of the Report, it is not too much to say that this Bill, like the English Bill, is permeated and saturated by the recommendations of that Report. If it be asked why all the recommendations of the Commission are not included, the answer is simple. To do so would be to overload this measure; it would require not one but many Bills. Moreover, this is a Housing Bill. The Report contains many recommendations which affect the Public Health Act, the Burgh Police Acts, which are not strictly germane to this measure. But I do claim that, after full consideration, the most important proposals, in so far as they relate to the principal object of this Bill, which is the early production of houses, find a place within its four corners. Other proposals of the
Royal Commission are given effect to in the Acquisition of Land Bill and in the Board of Health Bill, while further proposals in particular those which relate to rural housing, would be more appropriate in the Land Settlement Bill, which I hope soon to introduce. It is surely better to press forward a Bill which gives effect to the most important proposals of the Commission—those securing the early erection of the new houses which are so urgently required—and to leave over for supplementary measures other proposals, which, important though they be, are not strictly relevant to the immediate purpose of this Bill.
The social importance of housing is obvious. It is obvious that it makes for the health and contentment of the people, but its industrial value is scarcely less important. The building trade is a pivotal trade, and its allied trades—those which concern themselves with the equipment and the furnishing of a house—will receive a tremendous stimulus according as the building trade revives and prospers. The inevitable unemployment incidental to demobilisation may thus, up to a certain extent, be met. For the house is a focus of many trades. Masons, carpenters, bricklayers, slaters, plumbers—all are required. Roads have to be made, sewers have to be constructed, and a water supply laid on. The house, too, has to be furnished. The aid of the curtain maker, the carpet maker, the blanket weaver, the linen weaver—all have to be invoked. And so the industrial effect of a generous housing policy is, like its social value, important and widespread. It tends, in other words, to release the springs of industry. This Bill, like the English measure, assumes the form of amending the Housing Acts already on the Statute Book. It may be convenient, therefore, that I should remind the House, in the most general way, of the provisions of those Arts that are being amended. There is, first, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which in this Bill is termed the Principal Act. It is divided into three parts. Part I. deals with unhealthy areas. Part II. with unhealthy dwelling houses, and Part III. with the provision of what are called lodging houses for the working classes. Part I., that is, the part which deals with unhealthy areas, applies, at present, under the Act of 1890, only to burghs. It en-
ables local authorities of these areas to deal with large unhealthy areas, or slums, which can be made the subject of an improvement scheme. Part II., the part which deals with unhealthy dwelling houses, as compared with unhealthy areas, deals, first of all, with houses which are unfit for human habitation. In the next place, it deals with what are termed obstructive houses, houses which, though not in themselves unhealthy, by their proximity cause other houses to be unhealthy; and the last part deals with small unhealthy areas which can be made the subject of a reconstruction scheme. Part III.—I am still dealing with the Act of 1890—gives local authorities power to provide houses for the working classes. The point to remember about Part III., as compared with this measure, is that Part III. is permissive in the Act of 1890. Again, if one looks for a moment at the Act of 1909, that Act amended and extended the powers contained in the earlier Act, and that Act (the Act of 1909) deals with two matters, housing and town planning. If the form of the Bill be criticised, it follows largely the form of the English measure. The alternative would have been to codify housing law—a task of colossal difficulty—and while it is most desirable that the law should be codified, it would have unduly delayed both the preparation and the passing of a Bill through Parliament if one had presented a measure which would be free from some of the blemishes which may be pointed out in this measure. It would have involved great delay, and to that extent would have prevented the early erection of houses which are so much required. Therefore, I put it to the House that the best method was selected on both sides of the Border.
I now come to deal with the provisions of the Bill itself. Its primary object is to secure that as many houses as possible conforming with a decent standard of accommodation, sanitation, and comfort, shall be built at the earliest possible moment. To secure that end, the ungrudging aid of local authorities is required—that is to say, town councils in burghs, district committees in counties which are divided, and county councils in counties which are not divided. On them the main burden of this measure must fall, but I hope that burden will be lightened by the help of public utility societies. Private enterprise has, I fear, been shown to be unequal to the task, but I hope the services of individual builders will be utilised by the local
authorities in the execution of their schemes. The Bill is divided into five parts. The first deals with the housing of the working classes, the second with town planning, the third with the acquisition of small dwellings, the fourth with the improvement of housing, and the last is a general and more or less formal Section. With regard to the housing of the working classes, the first two Clauses provide that it shall be the duty of a local authority to consider the needs of its district with respect to the provision of houses for its working classes, and, within three months of the passing of the Act, to submit to the Local Government Board for approval a scheme for the provision of these houses. Any scheme approved by the Board must be carried out within such time as the scheme provides, or within such further time as the Board may allow. These Clauses make mandatory what is now merely permissive in the Act of 1890—a vital change, as the House will agree. For the "shall" of this Bill takes the place of the "may" in the Act of 1890, and progress, therefore, we may hope, will be much more rapid. To compare these two Clauses with the recommendation of the Royal Commission Report is really to turn from proposition to enactment. The Royal Commission Report says this:
The State itself, through the local authorities, is alone in the position to assume responsibility…The local authority must he plaoed under an unmistakable obligation…to undertake themselves, with financial assistance from the State, the necessary building schemes. Without such a definite obligation exercised under the direction of the central authority, we are satisfied that by no administrative machinery known to us can the necessary houses be provided.
So far the Royal Commission Report. That is exactly what the Bill, in the Clauses to which I have referred, purports to do, and does. I assume that the vast proportion of local authorities will be found to be willing helpers in this matter. But should there be any recalcitrancy or delay on their part, then Clause 3 of the Bill empowers the Board to carry out a scheme and to recover the cost of carrying it out against the local authority. Clause 4 gives the Board the same power with regard to local authorities who fail to comply with an Order of the Board to carry out improvements and rehousing schemes under Parts I. and II. of the Act of 1890. So that with
regard to each of these Parts the Board has power to step in, should the necessity arise, and, if the local authority fails to carry out its duty, the State, by means of the Local Government Board, can perform that duty for and on behalf of the local authority and charge it with the cost. It is not unimportant to remember that the Board has, in point of fact, during the War carried out great housing schemes for the Admiralty, the Ministry of Munitions, and for others who were directly or indirectly employed in connection with the output of materials for war on sea and land. For the Admiralty the Board constructed 2,238 houses, and for the Ministry of Munitions 900–3,138 in all. I mention that because not only have these schemes of the Board relieved the shortage of houses but they have also demonstrated what the Board can do in the event of default being made by local authorities
Clause 5 is a highly important Clause. It gives statutory authority to the financial arrangements which are proposed to be made. These arrangements have provoked a good deal of discussion outside, and I desire once more to make quite clear what is intended. The Board issued a Circular last February to local authorities, explaining the financial provisions proposed. Briefly stated, they are that the immediate liability of the local authorities is limited to the produce of a 1d. rate. Any deficiency in excess of that amount on schemes for houses which are presented within twelve months and carried out within two years of the date of the Circular—February last—is to be defrayed by the Government. The Local Government Board is authorised, in exceptional cases, to grant an extension of the latter period. At the end of that period of two years the whole situation will be open for review and reconsideration. The object of fixing this two years limit is to ensure that as many houses as possible shall be built at the earliest possible moment, and also, quite reasonably, as I think, to protect the Treasury against an unlimited liability. The Local Government Board is giving all the assistance in their power to local authorities to ensure the expeditious preparation and carrying out of housing schemes. For that purpose they have already largely increased their staff, which now includes a Director of Housing, Housing Commissioners, inspectors, architects, and engineers of ability. Under a competition which was carried out at the expense of the Government, with that
assistance of the Institute of Scottish Architects, a panel of architects has been appointed from whom local authorities are recommended, although in no way compelled to select architects for their schemes. A most instructive Report has been obtained from a committee of women, including working women, who were appointed to consider and report upon the best type of house required from a housewife's point of view.
Suitable arrangements have also been made with the Ministry of Supply for the provision of building materials to the local authorities. The Building Material Supply Department, which is a branch of the Ministry of Munitions, is entrusted with this work, assisted by a director and an Interdepartmental Committee. Prices have been arranged for the purchase of bricks, cement, lime, slates, soil and waste pipes, rain pipes and rhones, sanitary work, ironmongery, etc. Price lists are being issued to local authorities, giving details and information as to how materials are to be scheduled in the bills of quantities purchased and paid for. The Director has a representative in Scotland whose duty it is to see that the local authorities are fully apprised as to the availability and suitability of the material they need. The Board have appointed an officer, acting on their behalf, to co-ordinate the work between the local authorities, the Building Material Supply Committee, and the Board itself. They are about to issue a circular giving full details of the scheme. Meantime, the arrangements are working with great smoothness, and the local authorities with whom the Board has been in touch avow that the scheme will be most helpful to them in their work.
Local authorities have responded very well to the invitation contained in the circular. The following was the position on the 1st May. We have already approved sites which have been submitted by twenty-three local authorities. The number of those sites is forty-six, and the number of houses to be erected upon them is 13,219. As regards the general type plans, fourteen authorities have already submitted these, and they provide for the erection of 10,523 houses. Lay outs have been approved at the instance of sixteen authorities, and twenty-seven sites of that character have already been approved by the Board. Accordingly, certain progress has already been made, and is
still being made, and I hope that it will be greater in the future than it has been up till now.
Returning to the Bill, Clause 6 extends the borrowing powers of county councils for the purpose of housing their own employés. I need not delay any longer over that quite useful Clause. Clauses 7 to 14 deal with the acquisition of land by local authorities for housing purposes, and their powers of dealing with such land once it has been acquired. In this connection I would like to appeal to landowners to give every facility to local authorities for acquiring land for this purpose upon reasonable terms, and what is equally important—in fact, it is almost more important—that there should not be any unduly restrictive covenants. This latter condition is really vital. I know that in many cases the landlord cannot help himself, because he is bound by certain conditions which he must pass on, but in certain cases it may be possible to convey the land without these restrictive covenants, and where this can be done I hope it will be done.
It is to be observed that the Clauses with regard to acquisition do not contain a new code for the acquisition of land. They must be read along with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Bill. I invite particular attention to Clause 7—the Slum Clause—which is designed to cheapen the acquisition of house property which has fallen into a bad condition—an object which was urged upon us by the Report of the Royal Commission. That Clause provides that where land is acquired compulsorily for improvement and reconstruction schemes the compensation to be paid for such land and the houses upon it which are in an in sanitary condition is merely to be the value of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for devolopment in accordance with the building regulations, in force in the locality. We mean, if we can, to sweep away the rookeries of our great cities to-day, and to let in a flood of God's light, sunshine and air to the inmost recesses of these fœted areas as they exist to-day. Clauses 8 and 9 facilitate the acquisition of land. Local authorities will now be in a position to take possession within fourteen days after notice to treat has been given of land to be compulsorily acquired—the question of compensation Under the proposals of this measure being left for future settlement. This will save much valuable time.
Clauses 10 and 13 enable a local authority to acquire and to put into order houses so as to make them available for habitation, and to lease or feu land acquired by them to other persons—that is, persons other than the local authorities—for the erection of houses for the working classes, and also to lay out and construct public streets and so on upon the land. Clause 11, which echoes the Report of the Commission, empowers local authorities to acquire land in advance for improvement and reconstruction schemes, even though such schemes may not have been made by the local authority or confirmed or sanctioned by the Local Government Board. I would invite the House also to notice Clause 12, which is a purely Scottish Clause. This Clause further facilitates the acquisition of land by providing that an heir of entail may sell or feu land for housing purposes, subject to certain conditions, without obtaining the consent of the next heir. This is a provision which again follows the definite recommendation of the Royal Commission.
I hope that the operations of public utility societies will considerably lighten the strain placed upon local authorities, more especially in connection with the provision of houses for miners and other employés. This is an important part of the Government housing policy, clauses 14 to 16 contain appropriate provisions in this matter. The terms of Government assistance to public utility societies have been recently issued to the local authorities. Briefly stated they are these: that where a scheme has been approved, the Treasury will advance 75 per cent. of the capital, the society finding the rest, and also 40 per cent. of the loan charges necessary to secure the repayment of the Treasury loan. In other words, 30 per cent. of the whole expenses will be given as a grant by the Treasury. I venture to say that these are very generous terms indeed. This assistance must, of course, be subject to certain conditions, and these have been specified in the Circular which has been issued to the local authorities. The Clauses in question provide for local authorities promoting and assisting public utility societies, and for greater facilities in obtaining loans from the Public Works Loans Commissioners.
Local building restrictions have often had a hampering effect upon building, and accordingly it is proposed by Clause 17 that, with the approval of the Board, these
conditions may be relaxed. Such restrictions are often statutory, and while they are necessary no doubt under normal conditions, they seem to be inappropriate for the present emergency, and the necessity for building houses both quickly and economically. A precedent for this provision, if necessary, is to be found in the Rosyth Dockyard Act of 1915. Clause 18 prohibits the letting of any house which has been made the subject of a closing order, and Clause 19 enables the Board to arrange with any other Government Department to exercise any of its powers under the Housing Acts. Under the existing law, improvement schemes under Part I. of the Act of 1890 can only be carried out in burghs. Power, however, is given by Clause 20—and this is, again, a Scottish Clause following upon the Report of the Commission—to a local authority of a district other than a burgh, to apply to the Board for sanction to have Part I. of the Act applied to their particular district. The House will probably agree, for example, that it is desirable in an area like the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire, where the conditions very nearly approximate to those in a burgh, a local authority should have this power.
May I say a word or two about the town planning section of the Bill. Experience has shown that the present procedure in town planning schemes involves delay and expense, and even unnecessary delay and expense, and accordingly Clauses 23 to 27 of this measure, which give effect to urgent representations which have been received from various local authorities, are intended to simplify and cheapen procedure. They provide for the abolition of one of the principal stages at present necessary in passing a town planning scheme, namely, the obtaining of authority to prepare a scheme, and also of the necessity for laying a scheme when approved before Parliament. These Clauses further provide for concerted action by adjoining authorities: for power to make regulations for expediting procedure, and for permitting the development of estates with the approval of the Board, pending the preparation of schemes. This, of course, avoids too long a period of what might be called the sterilising of land from a housing point of view.
Part III. deals with the acquisition of small dwellings, and on this point I can say all I have to say in a very few words. Under the Act of 1899, which is being amended, local authorities are empowered
to advance money to enable persons to acquire the ownership of small houses in which they reside. Any such advance under the Act of 1899 must not exceed four-fifths of the market value nor£240, and an advance cannot be made where the market value of the house exceeds£400. Unfortunately that Act has proved to be a dead letter in Scotland. Section 28 of this Bill, which again follows out a recommendation of the Royal Commission, extends the limit of advances to be made to persons wishing to purchase their dwellings from four-fifths to 85 per cent. It abolishes the£240 limit, while the value of the houses in respect of which advances may be made, is raised from£400 to£500. These changes, it is hoped, will enable many more persons to purchase their houses, and that seems to have been the view of the Royal Commission in its Report.
I now come to the last part of the Bill, entitled "Improvement of Housing." I regard this as a vital part of the measure. It is peculiar to Scotland. Clauses 29 and 30 apply to districts other than burghs certain statutory provisions which exist in burghs to-day as regards, first, the supply of water to houses, and, secondly, the provision of proper sanitary appliances. Again, the Report of the Royal Commission receives effect. The absence of any such powers is, as the Royal Commission points out, one of the chief causes of the bad conditions which prevail to-day in miners' houses. Clause 31 aims at the same evil, by enabling county local authorities to frame by-laws as to the houses in their areas on the same lines as those which exist in burghs to-day. Again, the Report receives effect. Clause 32, which contains a drastic provision peculiar to Scotland, deals a death blow to the one and two-roomed houses which have been a curse to the country in past years. It prohibits, unless in exceptional cases, the erection of houses of less than three a apartments, and provides for the regulation of the occupancy of such existing houses. Here again the Royal Commission's Report receives effect. The accommodation supplied for seasonal workers, such as potato-diggers, gives rise every year to grave scandals in Scotland, and forms the subject of animadversion and recommendation by the Report. Clause 35 enables local authorities to make by-laws ensuring that proper sani-
tary accommodation shall be supplied for these workers. In order to ensure that agricultural and fishing interests shall not be injured by any undue stringency in these by-laws, the Board, before approving of them, is enjoined to consult both with the Board of Agriculture and with the Fishery Board. The fifth part of the Bill is general, and that part and the Schedule, being more or less formal, while suitable for discussion in Committee, are of such a character that I do not think I should be justified in detaining the House by discussing them on Second Reading.
Such, then, is this Bill. Almost every operative Clause, as I indicated as I went along, including those which follow the English Bill, is in the direction if not on the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission. That Report is at once the source and the inspiration of the measure, and also, I think I might say, of the English measure. The obstacles which are enumerated in the Report to housing reform are removed, or at any rate much diminished, by the provisions of this Bill. I present it to the House as a carefully considered attempt to deal with a tremendously difficult problem. A few may think that it goes too far. Many may think that it does not go far enough. I am quite willing to consider any Amendments to be moved in Committee for the purpose of improving or strengthening the measure. Of course, I do not present it to the House as perfect. Indeed, I am well aware that it is not perfect. But I venture to appeal to the House that criticism should be constructive rather than destructive, and that no provision should be thoughtlessly opposed unless a better alternative can be suggested. I appeal to the House to join in producing a worthy and effective measure which shall help to usher in a new and brighter era in our national life.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: We are very much indebted to the Secretary for Scotland not only for the very lucid and comparatively brief manner in which he has opened a very difficult subject, but also for the note of warm human sympathy which ran through the whole of his remarks, and which, we trust, may not only find an echo but an abiding place in those local authorities which in Scotland will have the power and duty of administering this Bill, which we hope will shortly become an Act. Without that, the finest Act in the world
will be of little or no avail to meet a problem which goes deep to the roots of the whole thing, not only in Scotland, but in the whole of the United Kingdom. I therefore gladly welcome the recognition which my right hon. Friend has paid to the work of the Royal Commision. As he has said, the chairman and secretary of that Commission are personal friends of both he and I, and while recognising the work of all the other members of the Commission, I most gladly join with the right hon. Gentleman in recognition of their long, arduous, unselfish, and, we hope, successful labours. The question in Scotland is of special acuteness. We heard a great deal, when the English Bill was going through the House, of the conditions which obtain in English rural and urban areas, and also in great English cities, but there are no conditions in England and Wales which do not at present exist in Scotland in a more intensified form. Scotland is far behind England and Wales in the matter of houses. I need only supplement what my right hon. Friend has already said by one or two statistics. In England there is assumed to be overcrowding where there are more than two people in one room. The Report assumes that there is overcrowding in Scotland where there are more than three people in one room. Taking that standard, very nearly one-quarter of the whole population of Scotland is living in overcrowded conditions, but if you take the English standard of more than two people in one room very nearly half the total population of Scotland is living in overcrowded conditions to-day. The condition of things which obtained when the Census was taken in 1911 is worse to-day, and particularly in Scotland, for this special reason: From no part of the United Kingdom, except Ireland, was emigration so widespread and so numerous before the War as from Scotland, and latterly it almost approached the dimensions of emigration from Ireland. That has been, stopped during the War, and, taking the existing conditions combined with the fact that there has been no emigration, the need for houses in Scotland to-day is far more intense than it would have been if there had been no war. That is the situation with which we have to deal. Under a good housing scheme the density of population is supposed to be not more than sixty to an acre. In certain congested areas in Edinburgh it rises to 667 per acre, in Dundee to 664, and in Glasgow to 700. At the risk of
wearying the House, I am going to read one or two statements from the Report showing what overcrowding means in a large area like that of Glasgow and in a small area, almost a rural area, and I shall give one instance of what happens in a seasonal trade:
Of all the children who die in Glasgow before they complete their fifth year, 32 per cent. die in houses of one apartment and not 2 per cent. in houses of five apartments and upwards. There they die—
say the. Commissioners, quoting from the Medical Officer of Health of that city—
and their little bodies are laid on the table or on the dresser so as to be somewhat out of the way of their brothers and sisters who play and eat in their ghastly company. From the beginning to the end their short lives are a continual tragedy.
Take the evidence given before the Royal Commission of the general inadequacy of one-roomed houses. Dr. Huskie, speaking from a long experience of medical practice in a small town in a rural area—overcrowding is not confined to the big cities—gave it as his view that the one-roomed house was altogether hopeless. This is his statement:
You sometimes find in the case of two rooms that there is a lack of decency, and repeatedly in the case of one room, when you have a case of confinement. It is very awkward. You have either to put the people out on to the street in the middle of the night or you have to get a screen drawn and separate it from the rest of the room as well as you can. Well, it is not a very nice thing, and it is bad morally. Sometimes there are lodgers in the same room. The worst case that I had was a case of one room where there was a widow with a son and daughter and a lodger. The daughter was being confined. The two beds were head to foot; in the one bed the lodger and son slept, and my assistant was attending the daughter in the next bed. This was all in a little bit of a room. Then apart from confinement work, how can they dress? One is dressing and another is dodging back and forward, and there is no chance of decency. It is a hopeless state of things.
Then the Commission go on to add:
The circumstances here detailed must be repeated, with variations, thousands of times a year in the one-room houses of Scotland. They serve to bring into striking relief the inconveniences, discomforts and indecencies that are normally inevitable where over-crowding occurs.
I will just give one more quotation with regard to the difficulties in a seasonal trade. This is what the sanitary inspector of Blairgowrie found in July, 1913, in one house in a terrace:
I visited a place at midnight and found in a two-roomed house twenty men and two women in the living room and twenty-three women in the adjoining room. They were all lying on the floor, with the exception of two women, who
were cooking food in the living room, and three young women who could find no floor space to lie on, and were seated on a box in the centre of the room. Some of the men had their boots off; none of the men or women had their clothes off.
This document to which my right hon. Friend referred is a marvellous Report in its wide sweep of survey of the history of housing in Scotland, in its wonderful draft of the legal aspect of the case, and in the accuracy with which it sets out its facts. But the most striking thing about it is the official revelation that tens of thousands of people in Scotland are living under conditions which no farmer who has any respect for his cattle would keep them in even for a single day. What a condemnation of our civilisation! But there the fact is, that here we are at the end of the War, just beginning in a modest way to realise what the condition of the people is. I do not wonder at the outbreaks of labour unrest. What I wonder is at the patience of the people, at how they have stood it for so long. That is the marvel. They are now awakening to those conditions. If they did not awake, who is going to be awakened? The Government and the public authorities only awake when they see the red light. The red light is shining to-day, and it is accompanied, I am glad to say, by awakened human sympathy. Fear is no real instrument of reform. It is not only fear that has actuated the Government to-day. It is, I hope and believe, a genuine understanding of the needs of the nation. The one point I want to make especially with regard to this Bill is this—the need of something being done quickly. It will not be of the slightest good setting up a lot of new Government Departments, unless through them swift action can be taken. I do not think existing conditions will be tolerated for more than a limited period; something must be done, and done very quickly.
Let me turn for a moment or two to the Bill itself. I welcome the clear exposition by my right hon. Friend of this Bill, to which, in so far as it goes, I give for what it may be worth my most hearty support. Anything we can do to assist my right hon. Friend in response to his appeal will certainly be done. I am sure he will agree, however, that we are entitled to exercise to the full any criticism which we can honestly tender to mate the measure better and stronger than it is in its present form. I welcome
the mandatory Clauses of the Bill. It is no good saying the local authorities may do this or that. They have simply got to do it, and unless there is a strong driving force at the centre, you will never get the high standard of local administration which is necessary to carry such a Bill as this into anything like effective operation. One knows the difficulties of the small authorities. I have a good deal of sympathy with them. But unless there is this compelling power we shall get very little done. I hope that as soon as this Bill is on the Statute Book my right hon. Friend will get the law codified. There is no reason why that should not be done. If such codification is necessary in any legal system, may I with all the respect that comes from the fact that I have an English law training, suggest it is more necessary in Scotland than anywhere. One of the reasons why Scottish lawyers have done so well at the English Bar is that once they get over the difficulties of Scottish law everything else must be easy to them. I am quite sure it would be really useful. There are advocates in Parliament House who would undertake to deal with it promptly and efficiently as soon as this Act appears on the Statute Book, and we can have the law codified, so that it may be placed within a small compass, and be readily understood by the ordinary man, as well as by competent and experienced lawyers.
Let me ask my right hon. Friend this question while I have the matter in my mind. There is in connection with this question of housing, the question of water supply. Is there any Bill already before the House, or is there any Bill in contemplation which deals with this question of the conservation and proper parcelling out of the great water-sheds? If you are going to give to the smaller country areas these great powers, they must have a proper water supply. What is happening now is, that you give great authorities, like Edinburgh or Glasgow, where they have the money and the brains, general powers to secure a grip on the national watersheds of the country. At the same time you are placing on these smaller authorities the duty of providing housing. But what is the good of having houses unless there is a proper water supply? We know that the smaller authorities have to fight it out with the greater authorities, and that in the end the long purse wins. Is it in my right hon. Friend's mind to take some steps to back up the smaller authorities
in their reasonable demands upon these greater authorities? Of course, I understand Glasgow and Edinburgh authorities say, "We do not know how big we are going to be years hence." But the fact remains that what the smaller authorities can get, they only get at the point of the bayonet. I think the central authority, through the Government, ought to have this clearly in mind, as, a matter that is of real importance in dealing with this important question of housing.
There is another point which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and that is the difficulty arising from the restrictive covenants in feu charters. There is no power in this Bill to wipe these restrictive covenants out. There ought to be. Many of them were put in twenty-five or thirty years ago, and they are utterly out of sympathy with modern conditions. Why should the parsimony, selfishness and meanness of the dead retain their paralysing hand on the living community to-day? I do not see any reason for it, and when these restrictive covenants are right against the public interest, let the public sweep them out of the way. If my right hon. Friend would take, his courage in both hands, and deal with them in the way the Royal Commission recommends, I can promise that we will support him. Then, again, there is the question of finance and payment; that is wrapped up with another Bill. What is the position of that other Bill? Here we have land, as in Scotland, as in England, Wales and Ireland, the interest in which have been subsidised for the necessities of the War. The price and value of the land has gone up. We heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that what the Government propose to do is to sweep on one side all the work that has been done in regard to land valuation under the Budget of 1910. I do not know how far the process of valuation has gone in Scotland, but at present the land has much increased in value owing to the War, and it is going to be taken at market value. I say again for the third time, and I shall repeat that as often as may be necessary, "it will not do." The people of this country are not going to pay the value of the land for necessary communal decent existence. The Government had better make up its mind to that. The land will have to be acquired. It will be acquired sooner or later, but it will have to be acquired at a proper and reasonable value
for public purposes, and that can be done by finding out what the Inland Revenue authorities value it at, or what the landlord values it at for purposes of rent. It is upon that simple basis that, it must be acquired. Nobody wants confiscation. We will give the value, whatever it is, on some such basis as that.
5.0 P.M.
There is another matter which at present stands in a thoroughly unsatisfactory position, and it will have to be cleared up, otherwise we shall find difficulties. We are told that nothing more than a penny rate is involved. That sounds all right. But who is going to find the money? The ratepayers and taxpayers of the locality will really have to find their share of the money. Some people seem to imagine that these subventions are going to fall down from heaven in no unrestrained manner on the just and the unjust alike. But when we come down to the tax-collector, he does not talk about the State; he wants the money of the individual. Therefore we shall have to see that the land taken for these purposes is secured on a reasonable basis, because the public authorities must know quite well that the balance over and above the penny rate will have to come out of the pockets of the individual ratepayer, and if the State taxation becomes too heavy, the ratepayers will not be able to pay the ordinary rate. It is all within a vicious circle. There is a tremendous out cry for Government and individual economy all round. It is the individual who has to pay sooner or later. Call it by the State or anything else as you like, that is the only way it can be done. The welcome which we give from these benches to this Bill is a hearty one. Anything we can do to further its progress or to improve or strengthen its provisions will be most heartily done. If I remember aright, John Bright finely said that a nation does not dwell in great mansions or princely palaces; the nation dwells in humble cottages. Unless we can make our statesmanship reflected in these cottages and in the lives of the people who live in them, we have yet to learn the first principles of that great art.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: As this is the first occasion on which I have spoken in this House I must ask the indulgence of hon. and right hon. Members. May I explain that I am particularly interested in this Bill for the reason that for the last twelve years I have been associated with the
working classes in Glasgow and I am most heartily in sympathy with their desires and ambitions in respect of their housing. There were three outstanding features in the statement of the Secretary for Scotland; first, that he deeply appreciates the most urgent need for improvement in housing; secondly, that he is laying himself out to do his utmost to meet it; and thirdly, that his great ambition is to get on. I am sure that every Member in this House agrees that the great object is to get on. The best way to get on is not to look back. I refrain, therefore, from making any comments on the present state of housing in Scotland, or the causes of it. We in this new House of Commons are not responsible for the past. What we are responsible for is the future and to get corrected as quickly as possible the damnable state of affairs that at present exist. I am sure that every hon. Member, more particularly every Scottish Member, will do his utmost to assist the Secretary for Scotland in undertaking the heavy burden which this Bill entails, for it is a very heavy undertaking. If the thing is to be carried out thoroughly and completely, it means the provision of upwards of 200,000 dwellings of some sort or another, of which upwards of 50,000 are required in Glasgow alone. That is a very huge undertaking, not so large, of course, as that for England and Wales, but huge enough. The whole success or otherwise of the undertaking depends upon the Government officials who form the driving force behind it. They must be sufficient in point of numbers and thoroughly competent to criticise schemes effectually, economically, and practically, and they must have immense energy to push the schemes forward as soon as they are approved. Commencing at the top of the tree, it appears to me that the Secretary for Scotland—I speak absolutely impersonally, of course, and I mean his office—is inadequate for this great work. He is already overburdened with the multifarious affairs of Scotland; in fact, he appears to have to be a sort of Jack-of-all-trades, carrying in his pack forestry, fisheries, health, and small holdings, and now he is to add to his burden this gigantic undertaking of houses. He requires Parliamentary assistance, and so do we. We want every representative sitting on the Treasury Bench to keep us closely in touch with what is going on. I suggest that the first thing necessary towards
getting this Bill into completion is additional Under-Secretaries for the Secretary for Scotland. I am aware that in the Health Bill which recently passed through this House there is provision made for one, but that is quite insufficient. This is a gigantic undertaking, and the work requires at least one additional Under-Secretary to properly supervise it.
I did not quite understand from the statement of the Secretary for Scotland whether Commissioners are being appointed in the various districts of Scotland, in the same way as they are being appointed in England and Wales. Whether it is arranged or not, I desire most strongly to enforce the point that these Commissioners and their staff will have to be most carefully chosen, for not only is this a very large undertaking, it is also is tremendously complex one. There is such a tremendous variety of classes of people to be considered. Apart from the non-manual workers—we do not hear much about them, but they ought to be considered just as much as the manual workers—there are among the manual workers in a city such as Glasgow the comparatively rich skilled tradesmen, who desire not to live in the town itself, but in the suburbs amid more rural surroundings, and to have a garden round his house. There are others of the same class who prefer to live in the town, but they want a better house than they have at present. There is the unskilled man and the labourer, who cannot afford such superior housing as his richer skilled brother worker. There is the single man and the single woman, for whom, perhaps, hostels make the best form of home; and there is the casual labourer, married or not, who at present is probably the inhabitant of these slums that we have to clear away. That shows how complex the question of urban housing is. In addition to that, there is rural housing, which has its complexities. There are the miners' roads, the villages, the dwellings of the farm labourer, and of the small holdings man. Perhaps the most important of the rural housing problems is that of the farm labourer. If we are going to develop agriculture, as we hope to develop it, by an increase in the rural population, the housing of the farm labourer is, perhaps, the question that should receive first consideration. I do not gather that in this Bill any provision is made for assisting landowners in providing houses for farm labourers. I should like to know if the Secretary for Scotland will tell us who is
to be the local authority, if not the landowner; who is going to look after that most important point?
The requirements of the whole of these different classes must be considered in respect to their capacity to pay rent. Therefore, the Commissioners appointed to carry this undertaking through must be people who have a broad knowledge of the working classes generally and be able to decide what rents should be paid by them. The question of rents is in a very unsettled and unsatisfactory state. It is a question of the very first importance what rent should be paid for these new houses. I gather from the pamphlet on financial assistance recently published by the President of the Local Government Board that it is intended at first to fix the rents at the figures which are now being paid by the different classes of people, plus such sum as is permitted by the extension of the Rents Restriction Act. Assuming that one of the new houses was 20 per cent. better than that in which a man is living at present, I gather that in about six months' time the man will have to pay 35 per cent. more rent than he pays at present. That is quite permissible and reasonable for the better house. But I saw reported in the "Times" recently that the City Council of Manchester intend to fix the rents at 100 per cent. more than the pre-war amount. That, I think, is utterly impracticable, and I should certainly not recommend that any such proposition be put forward for Scotland. Even with 100 per cent. increase in the rent, it is obvious that a very large subsidy will have to be forthcoming from public funds. As we in this House are responsible for expenditure, I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will within some reasonable time be able to inform the House what this Bill is going to cost. I have only one other point to make, but it is also a very important one. I take it that the main reason for this Bill being brought in is to promote the welfare, happiness, and contentment of the working classes, and that no one else will benefit by it. From those working classes there come the skilled tradesmen who are essential for building the houses. Those skilled men—plasterers, slaters, bricklayers, and so on—are all subject to unfortunate restrictive trade rules, which so restrict building that probably only 100 houses will be built in the time during which 200 at least ought to be built. If it has not already been done
by the President of the Local Government Board, I suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that he should approach the trade unions concerned with a view to their relaxing their restrictions for the purposes of this Bill. That suggestion should receive the sympathy of the representatives of Labour in this House, and I trust that they will support me in it. I shall have the utmost pleasure in voting for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I hope we shall do our utmost to bring it into action.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: (Central Edinburgh)
I desire to associate the Scottish Labour Members with the tribute which was paid to the statement made by the Secretary for Scotland. I desire also to pay our tribute to the work of the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland. To some extent at least that inquiry was inspired by the interest of the Scottish Miners' Federation. In introducing a Bill of this kind it is altogether impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to include one-tenth part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It formed one of the largest and in many respects most important studies of economic and social history in Scotland within recent times. But while we agree that nothing like the full number of these recommendations could possibly have been incorporated, it should have been possible to include, at least in broad outline, some of the more important recommendations which have been omitted. Our criticism from the Labour Benches is offered in no spirit of hostility. All criticism of a measure of this kind should be constructive in character, but the problem is so vast, so urgent, so acute and even terrible that we have not time, as Scottish Members, to wrangle over points of nicety or etiquette or anything else. It is our business, if we differ, to make a constructive contribution, and I am going to try to make such a contribution based on the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission itself, which is the foundation and the inspiration of this Bill. One would like to see incorporated in any adequate measure of housing reform in Scotland something resembling a policy which will meet the peculiar needs North of the Tweed. Our housing problem, from the point of view of the materials we use, of the length of life of the house, of the conditions of the feu on which the property is erected—indeed from every point of view—is quite different in
Scotland from what it is in England. We require, therefore, an advanced, a drastic and certainly a democratic policy in Scottish housing, and I think it is not impossible so to amend this measure as to include some of the leading and the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission which are now omitted.
First of all, on the question of public utility societies, the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that the Government intends to rely, apparently to an appreciable extent, on the activities of these bodies. I have no desire to misrepresent the public utility societies, but probably hon. Members will not dispute this description of them, that they are a kind of half way house between private enterprise on the one hand and full-blown public responsibility on the other, as expressed or discharged by the local authority. The public utility society has its fixed distribution. It has a large measure of publicity. Apparently it is going to get Grants from the Government directly or through the local authorities. But the central difficulty lies in the fact that when we begin to trust our housing problem and its solution to the public utility societies we expose ourselves to at least two dangers. The first is the danger of a divided or dual responsibility. The housing needs of Scotland are so acute and urgent that we cannot afford to run such a risk. The second point, and in some respects the more important, is that you have not in the public utility societies that direct association of all the people of the locality, as ratepayers, with the use of their money in the solution of a problem which affects every one of them in all the departments of their lives. I have no desire to close the door on any body outside the town councils, the county councils, or the local authorities, but in this matter, more particularly in the light of the history of some of the public utility societies in Scotland—not a large number—it is very important indeed to concentrate full responsibility on the local authority, as is done in this country and see that it is carried out to the last degree.
We in Scotland have a system of housing which is not represented to any very large extent in England, namely, the tenement system. The first constructive criticism I would offer—and this, again, is based largely on the recommendations of the Royal Commission—is that we might well have incorporated in this measure a
definite policy regarding tenement property. There is widespread division of opinion in Scotland. I hope I am honest and frank enough to admit that in no section of Scottish society is the division of opinion regarding the benefits, advantages, or disadvantages of tenement property more acute and more real than among the working classes themselves. A very large section of Scottish labour is absolutely opposed to tenement property, and a considerable section of Scottish labour is strongly in favour of it, and the ultimate solution will probably be, something resembling a modification of the existing too high and too congested property of the tenement type as we find it more particularly in the large communities. The right hon. Gentleman, may say that very much we are asking now is proper material for the local authorities, for local by-law and regulation. You have a great deal of delay in getting many of these by-laws passed, but quite apart from that you have a great deal of conflict in point of view. Much unnecessary difficulty emerges because we do not put down in an Act of Parliament a line of policy which would guide the local authorities to begin with and eliminate or prevent delay. The Royal Commission suggested three or four very important points as regards tenement property. They said, first of all, tenements shall not be more than three storeys in height. That has already been adopted in the case of Edinburgh and in some other of the larger localities. They said, further, that you are not to build tenements on the continuous system on which they are erected now, you are not to build them in the form of hollow squares, and in the last place there is to be provision for a type of tenement which will include open spaces for the recreation and the health of the residents, more particularly the children. Is it too much to ask, in considering this Bill, which must vitally affect a very large amount of tenement property, that these plain and definite recommendations should be included and should not be left to the conflict, and it may be very often to the indifference, of the local authorities?
In the second place, this measure takes no cognisance of the very large amount of farmed out property, more particularly in the large urban areas. There, again, it may be contended that local by-laws or municipal regulations will meet the case,
but I will give a very plain illustration to show that that is not proved, to say the least of it. We in Edinburgh and other large centres were supposed to have far-reaching regulations regarding farmed-out property, but in an inquiry which some of us interested in social and economic problems made a few years ago into certain classes of this property in Edinburgh we found that very large tenements, including probably eighty or a hundred one- or two-roomed houses, would be bought up at comparatively low rates, often by some wealthy resident in the suburb. The property would then be farmed out at£250 or£300 per annum, or some figure of that kind. The tenant would let these one-roomed houses not once or twice, but often three or four times per night to different tenants, obviously for immoral purposes, and if they were not to let they were let as furnished houses, with a table or a chair or a grocer's calendar or two by way of decoration for the walls, at 5s. or 6s., and in some cases 7s. 6d. per week. In the course of that investigation we asked the tenants why they paid such exorbitant prices for one-roomed houses while they could obtain houses unfurnished for 2s. or 2s. 6d. per week in the same locality, and their invariable reply was that they were hiring a furnished house, although the furniture would not cost in all probably more than 10s. or 15s. at any sale in the same locality. Not only were these houses let under that system a very grave danger to public health and morality, but the inquiry showed that they brought£500,£600, and sometimes more to the people who farmed the houses at£250 or£300, from the people behind the scenes who were the real owners. This danger is much more real than many of us imagine. It is quite true that the local authority in Scotland has the power, as we have in Edinburgh, to close many of these houses under the Closing Order, but where you have very great pressure in districts of that kind, or men in casual or temporary employment, where you are trying to make provision for workers at Rosyth and other areas within ten or eleven miles, all these regulations break down in practice and the mischief of ill-health and immorality continues. We require, therefore, some provision in this Bill to deal specially with that class of houses. Attention is directed very closely and very searchingly to it by
the Report of the Royal Commission, and I am only asking that a leading recommendation of that Commission should be incorporated, as far as possible, in the Bill.
Again, the Royal Commission emphasised the urgent need for the establishment of a standard of overcrowding, and it was specially emphasised that that standard was not to apply merely to houses which were small or were let to the working classes, but was to be applied to house property at large. Experience during the War has taught us that there is a very considerable amount of overcrowding in quite large houses. Unless we have throughout, the whole structure of this part of our social problem in Scotland something resembling a uniform rule or principle in the light of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, then I feel that the large expenditure of our public money on public health and on houses and other measures of reform is more or less thrown away or wasted.
I do not wish to detain the House at any length by references to the rural housing problem in Scotland, but the right hon. Gentleman is hardly entitled to say that that will be included and dealt with under a Land Facilities or Settlement Bill. There can be no doubt that the county council as the local authority in the rural districts must be responsible, whatever happens in further legislation, for the housing in those localities, and under this head the Royal Commission laid down several; I think six altogether leading recommendations of the highest importance. First of all, they emphasised the call for a standard. In the second place, the Commission said that the county council must be responsible for making the existing rural property habitable; and in the third place, that there should be an immediate survey of all rural houses, also that the proprietor of an estate should be responsible for the rural housing on his estate, and that the farmer should be eliminated as a factor in this part of this problem, and, above all, that the proprietors of land should not have power to so far as their estates were concerned. That seems a very elementary and reasonable precaution, that we should be able to fasten responsibility in that matter. Over crowding is much more acute in some of these rural districts than it is in even the
crowded part of many of our largest cities. In the matter of rural housing in Scotland there were no fewer than thirty-one recommendations of the Royal Commission, recommendations which do not find a special place in the paragraphs of the measure now under discussion. That, I think, is a reasoned, and I hope, a constructive criticism of this measure. We are entitled to some special consideration for rural housing in Scotland in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission.
In connection with the solution of the housing problem in Scotland, the Royal Commission drew attention to the fact that there existed in pre-war times, and there still exists, something resembling a combine or trust influence in the supply of raw material. All who have even an elementary knowledge of the Scottish building trade will admit that a very large proportion of building materials North of the Tweed are supplied by a comparatively small number of firms, and if the investigation is carried a little further it will be found that these firms are working in association, and there is a very great danger that in our tackling the housing problem after the War, or when peace is signed, or under the terms of this Bill, when there may be tremendous demands for all kinds of raw materials, we shall find that the price of material is forced up, the ultimate rent of the property is increased, and the burden which the taxpayers will have to pay through the operations of influence of that kind will be increased unless we take steps to prevent it. The Report of the Royal Commission was drastic and far-reaching. It is perfectly idle for anyone to suggest the contrary. They made a definite recommendation that it would be necessary in the solution of this problem to take some steps, however much we may object to control in these cases, to control or regulate supplies and prices of raw materials for houses, that we were here confronted with a tremendous public need, and that we were entitled to protection against monopoly or combine or trust influence in such a matter.
No Scottish Housing Bill will be complete unless it includes a clause which will deal with the problem of mutually-owned property. The part of the Bill which refers to the reconstruction of existing property in Scotland will not travel along ten yards in its future experience North of the Tweed unless it handles that problem. Experience has shown, where tenements
are owned by a comparatively large number of people, that there is, first of all, a difficulty in getting agreement with reference to repairs, even where these are urgently necessary. Some of the more enlightened proprietors proceed to the local sanitary inspector or to the borough engineer, and get notices served upon the other proprietors, including themselves. When notices have been served, the proprietors must execute the repairs or get the work done within, a certain number of days after the service of the notice, and then the difficulties of the proprietors, even where they are well intentioned, begin: They very often find it difficult to get their fellow-proprietors to agree. A local builder, or tradesman, or firm, who may be quite willing to do the work, canvasses so many of the proprietors of the property, and gets their consent, and when he has obtained the sanction of a majority of the proprietors, he is entitled to start the work of repair if he is prepared to take the risk. This happens in a very large number of cases. Not very long after, he has to recover the money for the cost of the work which he has executed. I agree that he has the remedy of the Sheriff Court, or other tribunal, but where the amounts included are small when they are portioned out over the various proprietors, while the aggregate sum involved may be large, there is obviously a very great difficulty in recovering that expenditure, and many builders will not now touch this class of work in Scottish building operations. That, obviously, is a state of affairs in the reconstruction of house property in Scotland which calls for remedy immediately.
Finally, there is the problem of the economic rent; indeed, the whole problem of rent in Scotland. It is now conceded on all hands that private enterprise is no longer equal to the task of providing houses for the community, and that if the present conditions continue it seems to many of us that there will not be much inclination on the part of private people to erect house property, and building must be done to an overwhelming extent by the State through the local authorities. It is conceded at the same time that they are not going to be in a position, having regard to the cost of materials and to the cost of labour and everything else, to charge what can in any sense or shape or form be regarded as an economic rent. I remember a chief sanitary inspector, at a very important Congress at Glasgow, dealing with
this question, made the suggestion that the proper way was not to subsidise the uneconomic rent of house property in Scotland, but to raise the whole level of wages in the community so that the would be tenants would be able to pay an economic rent for the property. That raises a very large issue, and I have not heard his views supported by many speakers on this question. They prefer to embark upon a State subsidy of houses on an uneconomic rent basis, rather than to give their sympathy and support to the trade unions and the Labour movement, in securing a general increase or rise in wages. In dealing with this aspect of the problem in Scotland we shall require to fix rents through local authorities, particularly in the larger centres, which are within the ascertained means of the great body of workers to whom this measure applies. How is that to be done? Is the local authority to be the judge of the incomes of these people? Is the local authority to be the judge in the rival claims and interests of the tremendous number of applications which will immediately emerge when any house property is erected? In Edinburgh we have reconstructed one or two old properties in an historic part of the city, and when these houses had been reconstructed there was a tremendous rush of applicants. The houses could have been let hundreds of times over. That experience will be repeated at least in the early years of reconstruction in Scotland, and my contention is that that is so important and means so much in the industrial areas and also in the country parts that we must have some method under this Bill or otherwise for dealing with it.
There can be no doubt that the time has arrived when we are entitled to regulate tenancy to an appreciable extent. It should not be possible for large numbers of people with quite considerable incomes to live in certain types of houses when they could quite well occupy better property. On the other hand, apart from preventing that, there is the question of injury to their own health and the health of their children. There is no doubt whatever that a very large section of the industrial population is penalised by disease which is not amenable to institutional treatment. It may not be definite tuberculosis. It may not be definite infectious disease, such as would entitle the party to remove into an institution, and it means over a stretch of years occupying larger houses for a man and his family
whose income is very often not equal to that task. It should be possible, through a system of Fair Rent Courts or other Regulations, to see that the needs of that class in every community, a by no means inconsiderable class, are met, otherwise their conditions are a great danger to public health and to housing reform. I trust that I have said sufficient to prove that, taking the basis of the Report of the Royal Commission itself, we are entitled to a much more generous measure than the right hon. Gentleman has introduced. I welcome the Bill in every way, and will support him both in Committee and in this House, but we reserve our right to extend this Bill, to propose healthy and constructive Amendments, so that at the end of the day we shall be able to face our constituents North of the Tweed and say that we have made some contribution to a solution of a problem of the utmost gravity and of far-reaching effect to our native land.

Mr. RODGER: As representing one of the Divisions of the County of Lanark, I desire to give this Bill a welcome. There is no question more acute or one which excited more attention during the election campaign than that of housing. The people were told that the housing question would be dealt with by Parliament as soon as it re-assembled, and I am glad that the pledge is being honoured. Housing is short, and the quality of the houses requires to be improved. We rejoice that there is a promise of houses of not less than three rooms. That means a higher standard of family life, family conditions and family comfort. I am not much concerned as to whether these houses are one storey, two storeys, or three storeys. The concern is that we should have better houses, that there should be round each house plenty of fresh air, that there should be more enjoyment and comfort in the homes, so that there will be a chance of better health, better decency and better morality. From our Scottish homes, some of the very smallest in our land, there have come forth men who have risen to great fame and eminence. We rejoice that Scottish character has overcome such great difficulties, but we do not know how many lives, who might have become great, have been lost owing to the inconveniences, discomfort and ill-health of their surroundings. It is our desire to see Scotland in this respect better than it has ever been before.
While I welcome this Bill, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that it is not economically a sound Bill. It is born of circumstances arising out of the War, and of expediency, and such Bills are certain to cause trouble later on. They belong to the same family as the ninepenny loaf, and unemployment donations. It is, however, needed, and we mean to make the very best of it, even though it will cost the Treasury a considerable sum of money. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that when some of these war measures, such as the unemployment benefit, came to be stopped it would cause trouble, there might even be bloodshed. But even with some risks we must go forward. The trouble may arise when other people, wanting larger houses, have to pay for them out of their own pockets, without any State subsidy. But that is not the question at the moment. We feel in these days—and I am glad that it is a general feeling—that the labourer is worthy not only of his hire, but is worthy of a better home; and this Bill is doing something to provide better homes for the working classes throughout Scotland, and we give it welcome.
There are one or two matters which, if dealt with, would render this Bill more popular and more readily acceptable to burghs in Scotland. On the second page of the Bill, Clause 5, there is a provision by which two authorities interested in the same scheme can have the expenses apportioned. But there is no provision for another kind of case which is not uncommon in Lanarkshire and in other parts of Scotland. Some burghs have absolutely no land available on which to build houses, while outside the burghs there is plenty of land. These burghs are asked under this Bill to assess a rate at Id. in the£to build houses, but if a burgh has to go outside its own area to build houses, there ought to be in the Bill some provision by which that adjoining land should be annexed by a simple, ready process to the burgh area for administration. The burgh will not spend money in building houses to be rated by another authority, and there ought to be some method of dealing with this matter. I am aware that land adjoining a burgh can be annexed by application to the sheriff, but before this can be done it must be a populous place, and it cannot become a populous place until the land is
built on, and when it is populous there will be a different scale of compensation. Some Clause might be added, providing in a simple, easy, and inexpensive manner that the mere act of purchasing ground for building will annex it to the burgh for rating purposes. In that way the money spent by the burgh would to some extent-come back. Some burghs in Scotland are halting in this matter because they cannot see their way to go forward spending the rates on supplying the need in an outside area. The convention of Royal Burghs passed a resolution strongly in favour of the suggestion I now make, and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will give it his attention, and if, possible, meet the difficulty.
There is another point as to the terms on which financial assistance should be given. These are stated in a Circular issued by the Local Government Board. Formerly the Treasury was to bear 75 per cent. of the cost, and the local authority 25 per cent. That has been changed, and I think, on the whole, the change is to the advantage of the local authority. After a penny rate has been spent the Treasury steps in, but there is a condition that this applies only to schemes approved of in one year, and carried through within two years. I know that there is a provision that that term can be extended. But these provisions cause doubt in the minds of people anxious to make arrangements, and I would like to see the period extended to three, four, or five years. It is quite impossible to build anything like the number of houses that are wanted within two years. We should require to go on building at about three times the pre-war rate in order to accomplish this, and that is quite impossible. If the period is extended so that schemes approved of and carried out within four years, come under the provisions of the Circular, it would, I think, give more general satisfaction. I notice that in Edinburgh last week there was a meeting of local authorities which came to a unanimous decision that not less than four years is necessary in order to give them a chance. If these little points are dealt with I think that the Bill will be acted upon all the more quickly.
I do not need to say a word about the difficulty as to land. It is a question which is always with us, but I know one particular burgh which has been negotiating
for several months, and has not yet come to terms as to the price to be paid for the land. I have a great deal of sympathy with a reference made to the 1910 valuation. Why should not that be the maximum, whatever else is arranged for? This is a question for the Treasury to look after, because there is not the slightest doubt that every extra penny paid for the land will come, not out of the local authority, whose contribution will be exhausted, but out of the Treasury. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will step in and see that a very moderate price is paid for land required for housing. These houses are required, and required as quickly and as cheaply as possible, and I hope that every obstacle will be removed that stands in the way of carrying this policy into effect. The Scottish Members and those in authority in Scotland will do their very best to push the matter forward, and f these little difficulties can be removed out of the way there will be nothing to hinder its progress.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: I desire to say a few words of welcome for this measure, although I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that it is not quite economically sound. It is, I take it, an emergency measure caused by the shortage of houses due to the War and other causes, and if it were even more unsound economically than it is it would be our duty to welcome it and give it all the assistance in our power. Now a few words from the point of view of my own Constituents. I have the good fortune to live in one of the healthiest parts of the United Kingdom. Everybody who knows my Constituents knows that they are not only round in body but sound mentally. Mr. Asquith used to tell them that they were the best educated, most intelligent and. most discriminating body of electors in the United Kingdom. I did not agree with him at the time he said that, but I have no reason to disagree with him now. Health is not entirely a matter of housing. It is our fresh north-east winds I think, and our habit of living out in the country that have contributed to the good results to which I have alluded. I had the pleasure of a conversation not long ago with a very distinguished general in France. He was on lines of communication, and he was very much taken up with the bad physique of many of our own soldiers. On lines of communication you
get the weaker men, the men who are not considered fit for service at the front, and he told me, what was rather a surprise to me to hear, that the physique of our men was worse than that of the French. The French are not particularly distinguished for good sanitary arrangements as everybody knows. What he said was, that if you raise a million men in England and a million men in France, in the first instance our men will be greatly superior, but if you continue the process and raise a second or a third million, the French will continue to raise men of as good physique as before, and our physique will rapidly deteriorate. He put that down to our habit of living in large towns, and working in factories, and what I wish to point out is that the secret of good health for the people is to get them to live, not in big towns but in the country, and to work in the country, and if they have got to live in a town, let it not be in a big town like Sheffield or Glasgow, but in a small town like, say, St. Andrews, out of which you can get easily in order to enjoy the fresh air.
6.0 P.M.
If that is a correct principle we ought to do all we can to encourage people to lives in the country and work in the country and not in these towns. I do not think that this Bill does very much in this direction. I am a county councillor in my own constituency, and I had the opportunity of being present when a gentleman from the Local Government Board came up and explained the provisions of this scheme to our district committee. I am sure that the Secretary for Scotland will be interested to hear what I am going to say on that subject. That gentleman had rather a warm time of it. The scheme was very, very hardly criticised. It was criticised from the point of view of economics, and think that the criticism must be admitted to be sound. What the members of the district committee said was, here you are forcing a scheme upon us, and making us pay a penny in the pound out of the rates, and over and above what we have to pay in rates at present, we shall be forced to add a penny, and not only that, as that will only provide a small amount of the expenditure the Treasury is going to furnish the rest of the money, and therefore it will so happen that the ratepayers will have to pay first of all as ratepayers, and in the second place as taxpayers, toward this
scheme of providing houses for a certain class of people. That is to say, the man who is to get the house, and who, I believe, will occupy it at a non-economic rent, will be occupying it very largely at the expense of the ratepayers, who will be mulcted not in one way only, but in two ways, in order to provide him with the house. I think there is no gainsaying that that is a sound criticism of the situation. Another criticism is this, that we have got very few slums in the small towns in my Constituency, and the effect of this Bill, so far as I can read it, will be that the houses built will all be in the towns, and I do not see that it is going to provide for any new houses being built in the country. It is true that the local authority will have power to build for its own employés. Take the parish in which I live; if this Bill comes into force, the local authority may build a house for the roadman and the policeman and perhaps for the postman. No doubt it will be very nice to have very superior houses for those three people, and it may be said with truth, that those three houses being built in a very superior style as contemplated, will be a sort of pattern for other people to build their houses like them, but that does not go very far, and this Bill will not help in the erection and construction of houses in the country. A few moments ago I laid down the principle that if you are going to go in for housing schemes at all, you must try and induce the people to live in the country, and not in the towns, and therefore, I think this Bill falls short in that particular respect.
There are three ways to get houses built. The first and best way is for every man to build and live in his own house. That is what I did myself, but there are very few people, unfortunately, in this country who can do that. What they do is, they go and lure a house and abuse their landlord, and it would be far better if they were to go and erect houses of their own, and live in them, and then they would know how much it costs to keep a house in order. The second way, is to encourage private enterprise, and to allow people to build houses for other people to live in, and to make a profit out of it. There has not been, I think, a single good word said this afternoon with regard to that particular method. But it was a very good method as long as it was allowed to work freely by itself without interference. It
was killed, I think, by the Land Tax of 1909. I know districts in which a great many houses were built from year to year, and as soon as that legislation came into force, the building of new houses stopped entirely from that very moment. The third and worst way, is for the State to provide houses. I do not consider that that is one of the proper functions of the State at ail, and it has never been considered so up to the present time. The State's first duty is to protect us from our foreign enemies, and it does not always do that very satisfactorily. The second duty of the State is to administer the law and justice, and to protect our property in our own country, but it is something quite new, and opposed to the old ideas of economics, that the State should be called upon to build houses for people to live in, because the result of that inevitably will be that the people who live in those houses will be living partly at the cost of other people, and if they misuse the houses then the State or local authority will be called upon to put the houses into repair at the expense of other people than those living in them. I think that those are quite sound criticisms of this Bill, but, as I said at the start, although it may be criticised from an economic point of view, we must accept it. There is a necessity for it, and I am going to give it my most hearty support. I am not only going to support it by voting for it, and by speaking in favour of it, but I have also, I think, done something to help it along otherwise. Within the last week, I have had an application for two plots of land, amounting to about ten acres in the aggregate from the local authority, which they desire to take up with regard to a scheme under this very Bill, and I have agreed to let them have those two plots of land at very favourable circumstances, and I have in my possession a letter from the local authority, thanking me for the action which I have taken. With those words, I beg to support the Bill.

Mr. D. COWAN: I have to ask that indulgence which the House so generously extends to those who address it for the first time. I need hardly say that, like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I heartily welcome this Bill, and after what has been said there is really little reason for my intervention at all. I intervene because, in the first place, when I elected to support this Coalition Government, I did it very largely on the strength of the social
programme which they put forward. I intervene also because the subject matter of this Bill touches very closely upon, and is inseparably connected with, a department of work in which my life has so far been mostly passed. I do not mean in any way to enter into the details of this Bill now. It is a long Bill, and a complex Bill, and that makes it the more necessary to be clear as to the means by which the object of the Bill is to be secured, and as to the principles to be observed in carrying it out. I take it that the purpose of this Bill is, to some extent at least, to redeem the pledge contained in the words of the Prime Minister, that this country should be made a country fit for heroes to live in. I should be at least among the last to cavil at the Prime Minister's superlatives. I gratefully recognise that very often we have found his imaginative superlativity quite a tonic in our national life, when the tone was rather low. I think this part of it will be satisfied by means of this Bill if it makes this country a country fit for decent people to live in, and gives a chance to the people of the country to be decent. Whether this Bill will accomplish this object, or even that part of it, which it is intended to accomplish, will depend I think upon three main considerations. Those considerations are, first, the provisions of the Bill itself, second, the methods by which those provisions are carried into effect, and third, the accompanying schemes of social amelioration, because a housing Bill by itself cannot bring about that betterment in the conditions of the people, which we all wish to see. It must be accompanied by measures of health such as we have already dealt with, of temperance, of education, and of, I hope and believe, a minimum wage like what has been referred to by an hon. Member opposite, because I do believe that nothing gives more self-reliance to the people than the payment of sufficient money to deal with for themselves. If we do not. carry out this proposal of a minimum wage, then these houses which are given over at less than an economic rent, will morally be little better than glorified poorhouses.
As to the method of the Bill, we have heard of the arrangements whereby the State, as represented by Parliament, is to work by a Department, and in connection with the local authorities. I do hope that it will be kept in mind that while it is permissible for the State to make use of
the local authorities, the sole and final responsibility for the housing of the people rests with the State, and of that responsibility the State cannot divest itself. Therefore, I hope that in this Bill ample powers will be taken, and if necessary later on exercised, to make certain that no local authority which is backward will be allowed to remain backward, but will be either forced to go forward or have the work taken out of its hands altogether. With regard to this whole matter of housing, we are all agreed in Scotland. Scotland has many traditions, of which it is justly proud, but as has been indicated here this afternoon, her record in connection with housing is by no means fragrant. Thomas Carlyle, who is not quite so much read now-a-days as he used to be, and perhaps will be again, brought an indictment against Scotland in his "Past and Present." Things have improved since that, but the present conditions are still sufficiently appalling. I believe that this country at the present time is determined that the Government shall fulfil to the utmost the pledge of better social conditions upon which it came into power. We have had housing schemes before now, and little has come of them. We have had before now the West End craze to go to the East End slums, but that craze passed away while the slums remained. We wish to make sure that is not going to happen again. I will not enter into details of this Bill, but I should say meanwhile, something drastic is necessary, if we are to have a really stable State. And for this among other reasons.
The War, among many other things, has given us a new plutocracy, a plutocracy that to some extent, at least, is founded upon the plunder of the nation in its time of need, and it is not to be expected that the people in this country will stand aside and see one limited class able to live in a riot of luxury while others are left without the bare necessaries of life. And, therefore, I believe that in its own interest the State must make this Bill a real Bill, a Bill which may break economic laws but will, at least, house the people properly. We have heard a good deal about the economic law, but I think that some of the laws which have been regarded as sacrosanct for a long time are really requiring resetting and some Christianising. It may be that the housing scheme is in some senses uneconomic. That being so, still it is not for this Parlament
to cavil at it on the ground of uneconomics, when it is being invited by its Chancellor of the Exchequer to discard Adam Smith, Cobden, Gladstone, and all the others.
I wish that the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a wider sweep and that he had devised some means for getting back those war profits for the good of the nation, and particularly for this matter of housing. I said at the beginning that I intervened on this question on two grounds, and the second was that it touched upon the department of work with which I had been all my life connected. I mean the department of education. Last year, under the pilotage of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, we got a Bill which restored to Scotland that supremacy which Scotland, without doing violence to its modesty, had always claimed for itself, a supremacy which had been challenged by the Education Act of England of that year. But I think that the right hon. gentleman will agree with me that that Bill cannot be really made operative until we have radically changed the housing conditions of our people in this country. We have raised under that Act the age from fourteen to fifteen. That in itself is all to the good, but unless we make the condition of the home such that that year of additional schooling will really be beneficial the Act will not certainly accomplish the purpose which it has had in view. We bring the children to school. We teach them, or try to teach them, the Ten Commandments, and then we send them back to homes where it is almost impossible to keep a single one of those Commandments, and therefore I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will add to the great services which he has already rendered to Scotland by forcing this Bill as far as it can possibly be forced. We are very proud of the record of our youth and our manhood in the late war, but I think a feeling of humility will mingle with our pride as we remember that many of those who died were in their days of helplessness the waifs and strays of our streets, and that they died for the ideal of a homeland in which they never knew a home; and I do hope that in the memory of those whom the poet has called "the rich dead," who were rich not by reason of what they received but by reason of what they gave, we will do what we can to make this Scotland of ours, this
Britain of ours, this Empire of ours, something better and nobler for the generations that are to come than it has been for the generations that are gone.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: If he will allow me, I would like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down on his very excellent contribution to the Debate, and I am going to try to take the advice of another hon. Member who spoke, the hon. Member for East Fife (Sir A. Sprot), who gave us such sound advice. I should not have chosen to be born in a bad house, and if I am able I will try and take his advice and build those houses which he thinks everyone ought to build in order that they may know the expenses of the upkeep of a house. The task on my party to-night is very considerably lightened because everybody who has spoken has blessed this Bill, and they have condemned the existing state of housing in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman characterised the Scottish Royal Commission Housing Report as being very impressive. I think he gave several adjectives, but to my mind none of them was equal to the occasion, and it was only when the hon. and gallant Member for Shettlestone (Rear-Admiral Adair) used a particular word that I felt happy. He said it was a damning indictment, and it is the only word that is applicable to the state of housing in Scotland. The people, and especially the working classes, are blamed by many for living in bad houses. Indeed, I have a report here of a very large county district committee in which it says that the working classes do not desire houses of three or four apartments. There never was such a lie uttered, and if one or two here and there have no desire for better conditions, that is not to say that the great mass of the working classes are not very desirous of getting better houses, so that, as His Majesty has declared in a speech recently, they can be made into homes. For after all we have not had homes. The working classes have only had some places in which they could breathe, and hardly breathe at that, and we welcome the Bill, and will do everything in our power to help its becoming an Act, with, of course, due reservations and with that constructive criticism that the right hon. Gentleman desires.
I am not going to say very much regarding the condition of the working class houses in Scotland. The Report stands for itself and I think no Scot can read that Report without a sense of shame, and I
think it ought to stir every one of us to try to get as speedily as possible better conditions in our country. It is on that side that I should like to say a word or two—the urgency of the case, the desire expressed by everybody for better housing, and the danger that will result if this scheme is too long delayed. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke after the Secretary for Scotland (Sir D. Maclean) spoke very warmly to-night, and I could almost have congratulated him on being a convert to our party. He knows the conditions, in Scotland, and he also, if I remember rightly, said that Governments seldom acted until they saw the red light. The red light is being flashed now, because I do not know anything in this country that will bring about a revolution, that everybody desires to see very far away from our shores, so much as this lack of houses amongst our working classes. It does not matter where you go. I speak chiefly of the conditions that I know best, the condition of the great mining communities. I think I know as well as anybody in this House the conditions under which the miners of Scotland are housed. It was my painful duty to take part in the investigation over a very large area of Scotland in preparing the Report for that Royal Commission, and I know the conditions, and I know that not only is the quality of the houses very bad indeed, but the lack of housing accommodation is one of the greatest sources of discontent that I know of in Scotland to-day. As I said it does not matter whether you go into a miners' district or into the rural hamlets, or visit the fishing villages, you will find the very same thing and the same discontent and the same despairing cry, "When is the Government going to move to give us houses in which we are able to live?" I know numbers of families in almost every village in my Constituency with sons who have come home from the War, who have been compelled to take their wives and families into the houses of their parents. I thought that that existed only in the mining districts, but I discover as I go on that it exists everywhere. I was in a very pretty little village on Friday night last, addressing my Constituents, and I discovered that the same thing existed there, more than half-a-dozen families having to take in their sons and their wives, and in some cases two or three of the children, in order to prevent them being thrown into the street. How can we prevent discontent? And how is
the Government going to prevent the working classes from demanding very angrily when this sort of thing is going to cease?
In spite of all the urgency, in spite of all the danger that I see ahead—and I trust that every hon. and right hon. Gentleman here appreciates the very grave danger indeed that will arise if housing is too long delayed—in spite of everything that we can say, we have our great district authorities refusing to move, or, at least, when they are compelled to move, only moving part of the way. In this Report you have not in any single instance in one big district—and I take it it is a reflection of all other districts in Scotland—you have not one parish getting the half of their demands. They asked for 100 houses, and they get something like twenty-five. In one district they asked for 400, and they are offered 150. In another district, they asked for fifty, and they were told that, because they had no drainage scheme, they could not get a single house at all. I should have thought that the very lack of drainage, the very lack of sanitation necessary for the upkeep of life, should have proved to these people that better housing was needed. I do not blame most of these men, because I know most of them, and individually they are gentlemen whom anyone could trust, but whenever they seem to get together, and it is a case of a sum of money being required, they refuse to do their obvious duty. I do not understand how any Member of this House can make expense the excuse of keeping back any great housing scheme. In the time of need, did not the nation give gladly everything—trade union conditions, everything that was dear to the working man—nay, give up their sons and themselves—in order that this country would be able to face the enemy on the field? I am not claiming a monopoly for the working class in that respect, but they at least did their share, and whenever expenditure is asked in order to carry out any scheme of reform under which the lives of the working classes would be improved, the expense stares them in the face. Though we spent for some years something like £7,000,000 or £7,500,000 a day on the War, are we to refuse to face housing schemes when an expenditure which a month of war would have incurred would easily give us a great scheme for our country of Scotland?
I trust that the Government in carrying through this measure will not only accept
helpful criticism, as the right hon. Gentleman has already said he will, but that they will strengthen the Bill so that there will be no loophole for local authorities to escape. We know what has happened in the past with local authorities, and again I say I do not blame them altogether; but we know we have had legislation in plenty. Laws have been made in this House, but those laws were, not administered in the country, and what we are trying to impress upon the Government is that this Bill shall emerge in such a way that there will be no loophole for local authorities to escape, but that they will be compelled to go on with their housing scheme, and to build the houses which are necessary to the health of the community. The Report which I hold in my hand is not an old one. It is for March of this year. I only enumerate one or two districts, but it was the same all over. They were refused even a half of what the parish councils want. Houses were condemned years ago, but, from the exigencies of the War, were allowed to stand in the hope that so soon as the War was over, or even during the course of the War, something would be done. Many people thought the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Housing was exaggerated and overdrawn. There could be no exaggeration. No one could have overdrawn or overstated the state of things that was found in that country. Here was a Report given on 18th of March last:
Plaster work broken; plastered on the hard inside affected with dampness; floors mostly of flooring tiles laid on the ground surface, defective and affected with dampness; window sashes un-hung, defective and time-worn and let in rain-water; the woodwork, doors, windows, facings defective and time-worn; roofs defective, allowing rain-water to percolate on to the ceilings; most of the rhones are a wanting. The drainage at the rows is by open channels, defective and foul, discharge into cesspools, thence to an open ditch at the lower end of the rows; privies and ashpits foul, insanitary and defective construction and inadequate; court-yards defective, foul, unpaved; no wash-house accommodation, except a few erections provided by the tenants. The houses No. 36 to 83 are in an advanced state of disrepair, and the sanitary inspector recommends that this lot be closed against human habitation.
This sort of thing could be multiplied, and I do beseech the Secretary for Scotland to see to it that the people who are in charge—the men and women who have been appointed by the ratepayers to carry through this necessary work—shall be compelled to carry it through, or that else very drastic action will be taken and all
the machinery that is provided in the Bill will be put into operation, and even strengthened, so that this necessary work may be done. Allusion has been made to the land. I trust that the Government will have no qualms in getting sufficient land for building purposes. We are blamed as a party for wanting to confiscate the land. I do not know that anyone of our party wants anything of the kind, but we do not want landlords to enrich themselves by the necessities of the poor. We want land to be taken at a fair valuation, but whether the land is at a fair valuation or not, land must be given by the people who own it to the nation for the nation's purposes. You damn your Housing Bill at once if you are going to make the rent such as people cannot pay.
I want again to warn the Secretary for Scotland regarding some erections that have already been put up by the Local Government Board. A great many houses have been erected at a place called Glengarnock, in Ayrshire. Even employers of labour say those houses have been flimsily built. They are cold in winter and inadequate for the purpose desired. These unsuitable, cold houses are rented at £27 10s. a year, which is a prohibitive rent for most of our working classes. I am glad to be able to say that some of our working-class houses are decent, and many of our employers are anxious to do the best they can, and when opportunity has offered they have done it; but even those people do not ask half the rent that is under the sanction of the Local Government Board. I do, therefore, utter this note of warning. I do trust that this Bill will not only be carried, but that, after due constructive criticism and Amendments that I am sure many hon. Members will be anxious to make, it will be carried through, and that it will be the beginning of better times for the working people in Scotland. The working-classes have never had the chance they ought to have had. I do not say our people are immoral, but I do say they have never had very much opportunity to be anything else, and it is due to the inherent virtue of our people that they are what they are to-day. For God's sake, let us see that our people get a chance of sweet surroundings, and do not fall into the idea that, because the man is a miner or a ploughman, or a mason, he does not desire a good house, for he does, and he wishes to do the best for the children he is bringing up. Without a good house you are very seldom able
to bring up a child that will be a benefit to the State and the pride of the home. I ask the Secretary for Scotland to do everything he can to urge on the local authorities the desirability of pressing on these housing schemes, and I ask him to take no excuse that will be offered, but to force them, and, if necessary, to take the work in hand themselves, and make the local authorities bear the expense.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: First of all, I should like to welcome the Bill, especially as representing a constituency in Glasgow which contains probably some of the very worst slums in that city. What has struck me particularly about the Debate this afternoon is not only the unanimity of opinion that we must have this Bill even in its present form, but that we must have this Bill quickly, that there is a great urgency, a vital necessity, about bringing into operation this Bill for housing and rehousing the people of Scotland. Let us take the conditions in Glasgow to-day. At the present moment there is a lack of 46,709 houses. It is suggested, or rather indirectly suggested, in the Bill that these 46,709 houses can be erected within the space of two years. I regard that as one of the greatest defects of the Bill. I feel sure that it is absolutely necessary for local authorities to have a much longer period than that in which to prepare and get their plans in operation. Another point which struck me in this Bill is that whilst it is necessary to proceed with all celerity, and to get ahead as quickly as possible, there is nothing provided for permitting private enterprise to proceed with building to-day. The Secretary for Scotland has informed us that there is one reason why this has not been possible—that is, that private enterprise has shown itself unequal to the occasion. But has private enterprise had any opportunity of taking any part in this housing scheme? I wot not! For the past four years private enterprise has been held up. There has been no possibility of getting labour, material, or anything else In order to increase the houses in our cities.

Mr. MUNRO: May I interrupt for a single moment, for the purpose of correcting what would appear to be an erroneous impression on the mind of the hon. Gentleman? When I said private enterprise could not, or had not, undertaken the task, I was not referring to the period of the War. I was referring to the period of very many past years. The Report of the Royal
Commission shows that private enterprise, during that long period of peace, had proved unequal to the task.

Mr. MURRAY: I accept that; but I would say, in spite of that, there is no reason why you should throw over private enterprise altogether in connection with this Bill. It seems to me the principle of this Bill contains the principle of the nationalisation of housing in this country. I believe that hon. Members who sit on the Labour Benches desire to see that nationalisation. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh informed us that he did not believe that the public utility societies, who under this Bill will be permitted to proceed with housing, would be able to carry out their undertakings. Further, he objected to that from the point of view that it would set up dual responsibilty. I cannot see where the dual responsibility would come in. As I understand this Bill public utility societies will be responsible to the local authorities, and these latter will have to approve of their schemes. Therefore any question of dual responsibility seems to me to be a matter of misconception on his part. But let us agree that the local authorities should have power under this Bill to promote housing to the greatest possible extent. I thoroughly agree with that proposal. Although I am against nationalisation of housing in this country, and against nationalisation generally in this country in so far as it is possible to maintain private enterprise, at the same time I do admit that there is a strong case for nationalisation of housing up to the extent of putting the housing in the hands, so far as possible, of the local authorities. Do not, however, put it there altogether. It is possible through these public utility societies and the housing trusts which are suggested in these Bills—and I submit through private enterprise—to promote housing, to accelerate housing, and to get the housing problem settled in this country far more quickly than is proposed under the Bill.
What reason is there against giving loans on easy terms to private individuals, to firms, or even to landowners, so long as they are prepared to submit themselves to certain rent restrictions, and so long as they are able to put up good security If they are able to do that, and if that is a way of assisting to accelerate the housing scheme of this country, it ought to be incorporated in the Bill. In making this proposal I am not going altogether outside
the confines of that excellent Report of the Royal Commission on Housing, to whose labours I should like to pay a tribute, as incidentally providing information which it would have been impossible to obtain, and which, as the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh said, has been an inspiration and the foundation of the Bill presented to us to-day. That Report is accompanied by a minority Report, signed by four or five gentlemen in Scotland, who have proved their public spirit and have shown in every way that they are able to come to a conclusion on matters which come within their ken. In that minority Report we find it recommended that money should be provided on cheaper terms to private individuals and firms and to landowners in order that they may be able to deal with the question of housing on their own properties or for their own employés.
I hope, when the Bill comes to Committee, that the question of enabling employers, firms, and landowners to have the same facilities as the local authorities in this matter will be considered. I rose to intervene for only a short while, but I do say that it is absolutely necessary—it is, indeed, a vital necessity—to get on with this housing. We must "get a hustle on," as they say in America, because if we do not there is trouble ahead of us, far greater trouble than we have gone through during the past four years or during the past box months. I speak as one who stood up night after night during the election and listened to heckling questions and interruptions chiefly on account of the housing conditions. I know that, so far as Glasgow is concerned, the people are determined that this question shall be dealt with and as quickly as possible. Incidentally, I should like to pay a tribute to the Glasgow Town Council for the manner in which its members have already coped with this matter. Within the past few years, I know, they have spent a million on improving, reconstructing, and building certain houses. They have already got a scheme which, if I understand them, has been submitted to the Secretary for Scotland. I know that they will take every measure they can and do the utmost in their power to promote housing in Glasgow, and of improving some of the more disgraceful conditions which there exist.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. J. TAYLOR: (Dumbarton Burghs)
As a representative of the local authorities I should like to contribute my quota
to the discussion. I represent one of the most crowded constituencies in Scotland. It has been my good fortune to see that town grow. I have had the pleasure in presiding over the Dean of Guild Court when the plans passed for developing the town. In 1866 the population was 5,000. When the Census Returns were published for 1901 the population had risen to 10,000. In 1911 it was 18,000. The next figures were 37,000, and to-day we have a population of 50,000. I have had the honour of seeing all these houses that have been put up erected. When I entered the town council we had something like 1,000 houses. We have now over 10,000 houses. While these houses may not be all that could be desired they are the best that could be built under the regulations. Local authorities have been blamed for the type of house that has been put up by them. But they have been hampered. They had regulations to administer. Beyond these they could not go. We very often had great objection to the density of the population that was placed on the land. But we had no means of preventing these houses being built. We had great objection to the houses being erected four storeys high. We had no means of preventing that. These were the conditions under which we had to build the town, and the town has been built. Notwithstanding all that has been said about the tenement system we consider that we have had exceptionally good houses in the borough over which I have presided. In the Dean of Guild Court we wish to have drastic improvements. We wish to limit the number of houses per acre. We wish to limit the high buildings. We wish to increase the number of rooms in each house. All through the years we have persistently advocated a principle of that kind. It has been my privilege to be a member of the Executive of the Housing and Town Planning Committee in Scotland. Much has been said to-day as to what this Bill owes to the Report of the Scottish Housing Commission. I do not by a single word wish to underrate what has been said in regard to that Report. But the Housing and Town Planning Committee also have their proposals before the Secretary for Scotland, and before the President of the Local Government Board of England. Many of the proposals that were thrashed out by the Housing and Town Planning Committee are embodied in this Bill. It has,
therefore, been my privilege to preside over a municipality and see the town grow up under the shadow of the Housing and Town Planning Committee. I have taken an active part in trying to shape the policy of housing in Scotland. And I welcome to-day this Bill as being the outcome of much spade work which has been done in the years that are past. The houses that were erected in the burgh over which I presided were all erected by private enterprise. Private enterprise, as long as things could be made to pay, did not object to build houses, but the time came when it was seen to be impossible to make houses pay, and then private enterprise stopped and no more houses were built. One of the firms in our district, to their great credit, when housing stopped in 1911, erected for their workmen a large number of houses, close to their own works, and let them not at an economic rent, but at a rent which the men were able to pay. The firm bore the loss, expecting to recoup themselves by the better health of the workmen, by their being nearer to their work, getting home to their meals, and not losing time. Local authorities have been blamed for not taking advantage of the previous Housing Acts, but that is not to be wondered at. In my district, about eighteen years ago, we erected, under the first Housing Act, some twenty-seven houses. We had to pay for the land and the houses in thirty years. The result was that, if we kept the rents at the same rate as other houses of the same nature, we were bound to lose, and all through those eighteen years we have lost from £100 to £150 a year. Therefore, there was no great inducement for a local authority to go on with a housing scheme. That was the reason why local authorities and town-planning committees advocated that the Government should come to the assistance of the local authorities and help to bear the burden. I welcome the provision in Clause 1 of the Bill, which makes it obligatory on local authorities to have a housing scheme, and which also lays down that if a local authority does not proceed with its housing scheme the Local Government Board themselves will come in and do the work. I do not think any local authority in Scotland that is at all responsible to public opinion will object to this Clause. As far as I know local authorities in Scotland, every one is willing to do its part and get on with housing as quickly as possible; and they
have done so. Before this Bill was ever thought of, many local authorities in Scotland had housing schemes prepared. They had land secured, and if it had not been for the War they would have gone on with those schemes, expecting to get some return from the Government that was then in power, to recoup them for the loss. My own town had a housing scheme, and we had land provisionally fixed; we did not buy it, but we paid the feu duty on it from 1911 until to-day. We had the plans prepared and we were prepared to go on, but the War came in, and, of course, building was stopped. When the Local Government Board asked for plans we were able to state that that was our scheme, those were our plans, and we were prepared to go on with them at once if the Local Government Board would give us power to do so. Many other local authorities in Scotland are in exactly the same position. They have their schemes ready, and if there is any delay in the matter of going on with building it will not be on the part of the local authorities, and I hope it will not be owing to the Local Government Board putting obstacles in the way of local authorities going on with their schemes.
I also welcome Clause 5. The first proposals of the Local Government Board were that the Government was to pay 75 per cent. of the difference between the economic rent and the rent obtained—that is to say, 75 per cent. of the loss. The local authorities were to pay the other 25 per cent. The Local Government Board and the Secretary for Scotland have been blamed by some for altering those conditions, and I saw that during the discussion on the English Bill the same objection was taken. As one of the executive of the Housing and Town Planning Committee in Scotland, I remember that that was the proposal which we placed before the Secretary for Scotland, and the same proposal was also placed before the English Local Government Board. Local authorities wanted to know what was the utmost of their liability. They said that they were not willing to go on with a scheme that was going to cost them a penny, twopence, or threepence. I heard it said in Glasgow that if they went on with housing, and bore the loss, it would mean to Glasgow something like 1s. in the £. Other local authorities thought it might be twopence, threepence, fourpence, fivepence or sixpence. Therefore they said, "Let the Government say that
they will bear the loss beyond a penny rate, and we are quite prepared to go on with the scheme as soon as our plans are approved of." I am glad that the penny rate is put in, and that the local authorities know the amount of their responsibilities. That provision, however, only applies to local authorities that have their plans lodged within a year and complete the buildings within two years. Speaking as one who has been connected with the building trade for the last forty years, I say that it is physically impossible to complete those schemes within one year. I know something about the preparation of plans. I know something of sending those plans to the Local Government Board, of the obstacles that are sometimes put in the way, and how the plans have to pass backwards and forwards. When the plans are accepted, estimates have to be sent out to tradesmen to draw up. When those estimates come back they have to be considered by the local authorities, and if they have to get the approval of the Local Government Board they have to go back to the Local Government Board for that. If all that procedure is to be gone through and it is not accelerated any more than it has been in the past, it will take months before a brick is laid or any work is done in connection with those housing schemes. We know what the climate is like in Scotland If that is the case the winter will be on us, and nothing will be done. I plead with the Secretary for Scotland that when the Bill goes upstairs he will alter that Clause and raise the time limit from two to three or even four years. I quite appreciate the motive, which is to give driving power to compel local authorities to erect those houses as quickly as possible, but it must be remembered that there is a scarcity of building material. We have heard from the Secretary for Scotland that he has made arrangements and has prices of building materials available, but even supposing there is all the building material in the world, you have not the men at the present moment to carry out the work within two years. I know of schemes at the present time which are being held up—the Secretary for Scotland knows them, and the officials of the Local Government Board know them—because there are not a sufficient number of men to carry out the work. Every effort has been made to get men, but they cannot be got. It is no use having bricks and mortar, wood and
windows, if you have not men to erect them. Therefore I plead with the Secretary for Scotland to extend the time. In the Report of the Housing Commission seven years is given as the time to erect those houses, and that was really before there was any shortage due to the War. If it took seven years then, surely it is not going to take any less now. With regard to the question of costs, we have had a good deal of discussion about economic rents, and the reason has been given that the increase in the cost of building has been caused by the increase in wages. That is so. Wages have gone up to more than double what they were. The cost of material has doubled, and in some cases even trebled. But, in addition to that, houses that used to cost something like £350 are now costing—I am speaking now of a scheme which we have going on at the present time for a hundred houses of the same type which could have been built for £350—and I am quite certain that when we have finished the houses that are being built to-day they will not cost one penny less than £700. Now one thing that has not been touched upon in regard to the increase of rent is that before the War money could have been borrowed on those houses at 3½ per cent., but to-day, by the Government's own action in raising the rate of interest—I do not object to it—the interest has been increased be 5½per cent., and I do not think any local authority will be able to borrow money at less than 5½ per cent. to-day. That means, on that basis of £700, a difference in interest of something like £14 per house. That is the reason why the Government should come to the aid of local authorities, and help them to pay the difference between the economic rent and the ability rent of the workers in our midst. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston (Rear-Admiral Adair) when he said that the red light had compelled the Government to bring forward this Bill. It was their intention to do so long before the red light became so brilliant, and I am quite certain that if by the erection of these houses the red light can be extinguished we shall all be glad.
I welcome also the power given to help public utility societies, and I only wish that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland would extend that to building societies. In the burgh of Dumbarton something like 500 or 600 houses of the
cottage type have been erected by building societies, and they are very anxious that the same privilege that has been given to public utility societies should be given to them. When the Bill goes into Committee I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try and see if it is not possible to include building societies within the scope of the provision which the Bill now applies to public utility societies. I welcome also the acquisition of small dwellings, but here again I wish that the Secretary for Scotland, with the knowledge that he now has of the cost of building these houses, would raise the limit of £500 to something like £700. He can easily see from the figures which have been given, and from the figures which he himself has, that it is utterly impossible to get a house that a man would buy for anything like £500.
I hope that when the Bill goes upstairs the right hon. Gentleman will raise that figure to something like £700. There is another aspect of this question which has not been touched upon. I welcome the provision for the simplification of town-planning procedure. For many years I have been pleading and fighting for this simplification in Scotland. In 1911 we brought forward a town-planning scheme which passed its first and second stages, and then it was held up because another local authority came in with another town-planning scheme, with the result that ultimately a joint town-planning committee was formed, and my experience of that joint committee has caused me to alter my opinion altogether about joint committees. Town planning has been arranged on the outskirts of Glasgow, by a combination of the local authorities concerned, and it has been very successful. We have provided a plan showing a great arterial way, with subsidiary roads, and a drainage scheme for the whole area, with the necessary sewers and everything else connected therewith.
I am glad the Local Government Board, under the Secretary for Scotland, have agreed to the simplification of these schemes, because at first the scheme I have mentioned would have cost something like £16,000,but by fighting against the proposal to send down every detail of the plan, and by only providing a skeleton plan, we got the cost reduced to something like £2,000, and that will satisfy all our needs. As to who carries out these particular schemes is a matter of indifference. I welcome the simplification and the expediting
of these plans by the Local Government Board. I congratulate the Secretary for Scotland upon the able way in which he introduced this Bill, and also upon the concilliatory way in Which he spoke of the Amendments, and if he follows the example which he set in regard to the Public Health Bill, I am quite sure he will see the reasonableness of these Amendments that may be proposed. They are not intended to condemn the Bill, but out of our own experience, we want your help to make this measure more workable and to build houses as quickly as possible. Scotland has gone a long way in the direction of preserving these provisions that there should be no houses with less than three apartments, and I hope that will not be the limit adopted by the Secretary of Scotland, but that three will be made the minimum, and that many of these will be houses of very much larger dimensions. I wish the Bill every success, and a speedy passage into law.

Sir WATSON CHEYNE: With all that has been said about the necessity of building a large number of houses and doing it quickly I quite agree, and I shall not enter into that question at all. I should like, however, to make a few remarks from the health side, and that leads me to the question—what do you mean by housing for the purposes of health, and more especially the question where are you going to put your houses? At first sight you would almost think that the essential difficulty is overcrowding, and I know that has a good deal to do with the sickness which follows. But that does not seem to be the essential point from a health point of view. No doubt for full health you require a certain amount of cubic space, and you run the risk of spreading disease if you have overcrowding, but still if you remedy that, and leave the other conditions alone you would not gain your end.
Another point of view is sanitation. You provide good sanitary arrangements and proper sanitary drinking water and so forth, and still you find matters are not as you expected. I think it will be generally admitted that towns are not the only places where you have one-roomed tenements and overcrowding to a very great extent. We know that in the villages there are similar bad conditions, but the mortality in towns and villages differs very much indeed. The average rate of mortality in children is from forty to sixty per 1,000, while the average town mor-
tality in industrial towns is between 120 to 140 per 1,000. In industrial towns you do not reduce the mortality materially with your model buildings. If you leave the industrial towns and take the towns which are not typically industrial they approximate more to the country mortality than to the industrial towns, although in those towns I fancy there is a good deal of overcrowding.
Take, for instance, Bournemouth, where you have a mortality of seventy-two per 1,000. Bath has a mortality of fifty-nine per 1,000, while the rate in St. Albans is fifty-two per 1,000, Tunbridge Wells seventy-nine, and so on. In another set of statistics in France the matter was investigated in 1912, and it was found that towns of 5,000 had a mortality of 111 per 1,000, while in the smaller places the mortality was fifty-seven per 1,000. Consequently, besides all the things that have been mentioned it is a very interesting point to consider what is probably the cause of this mortality in addition. I am not saying that bad sanitation and overcrowding will do no harm, but what is it that is the chief cause of this very great difference between rural and urban districts? The general opinion come to is that it is due to smoke and not merely to the particles of smoke, but it is the obnoxious elements in the smoke that causes the trouble. To prove that there are obnoxious elements in smoke you have only got to try and grow plants in the crowded parts, and you will find that nothing will grow there as it ought to do. Even if you look in those districts at the stones they are wasting away, not by the weather, but very often to a great extent by the chemical substances and solid materials which fall from the smoke. You can form some idea as to the extent of the injury done by these obnoxious elements in smoke by their effect on growing vegetables, and what happens to the vegetable world will naturally happen to some extent in the animal world. We know that persons who are largely exposed to the inhalations of these solid particles develop trouble in the lungs. There is the disease known as stonemasons' phthisis, in which the lungs become full of particles which set up a change resembling a tuberculous disease. Then we have miners' lungs. We have only to examine the lungs of town inhabitants to see that they are black and hard
with dense particles; and the great prevalence of lung diseases in children in the towns is often the cause of disease, and these particles have a good deal to do with the illness.
I also found a very interesting statement as to the calculated amount of solid particles that fall in various towns. In Greater London, including the suburbs, it has been stated that 440 tons of solid material fall from the smoke in the course of a year. In Glasgow it amounts to 1,332 tons per square mile, and in Coatbridge 1,939 tons per square mile. One can easily imagine that that, apart from the chemical substances contained in it, must cause a great deal of trouble. The point I wish to bring forward is that the very first thing you should consider in your housing scheme is that you must get your houses away from such a deadly state of matters as is present in our industrial towns. If you clear the slums and build other houses in the slum areas, you will not make any material difference from a health point of view, and either the houses must be put up in the country or the factories must be taken out of the towns. I presume that the easiest thing to do is to take the houses into the country; and as regards the areas in the immediate vicinity of the factories, they should be used for open spaces or warehouses. I want to emphasise that one point, namely, that in your housing schemes you must bear in mind that the position of the house will be more important from the point of view of health than any other condition.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: I wish to congratulate the Secretary for Scotland not only upon having introduced a separate Bill for Scotland, but upon having done so soon after the Health Bill, and I hope that with the general co-operation of Scottish Members we shall be able to catch up the English Bill. I was somewhat surprised at the attitude taken up by the Leader of the Opposition, who stated that he wondered at the patience of the people of Scotland, and he could not understand why this Bill had not been introduced before. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is almost the only remaining member of the pre-war Government who is now in the House, and that the Housing of the Working Class Bill which was introduced in 1914 just previous to the War, had in it the very Clause by which the Secretary for Scotland sets such
store in this Bill. It contained the same power of making it compulsory upon local bodies to provide housing schemes, and also gave the Local Government Board power itself to take action if the local bodies failed to do so. That was the principle of the Bill which was introduced in 1914, and with which the then Government would have nothing to do. The Bill now before the House is practically framed on the principle of that Bill, and the Leader of the Opposition is the last person in the world to cavil at the action of the present Government and to say that it is a modest step. It is in any case a great advance on anything that the Government of which he was a Member ever thought of doing. No doubt conditions have changed since the War and the housing problem has become more acute, but it existed, especially in Scotland, long before the War, and I hope now, in spite of the delays caused by the War, that we are within measurable distance of seeing the worst of all the grievances of housing in Scotland removed. One speaker expressed the hope that there will be an Under-Secretary for Scotland who will deal with housing. Under the Ministry of Health Bill, which has not yet been passed into law, I imagine that all the powers of the Local Government Board are to be transferred to the Ministry of Health. Under that Bill there is an Under-Secretary to be appointed expressly for the purposes of health, and, as I read it, he will also be the Under-Secretary to deal with housing. Perhaps the Secretary for Scotland will correct me if I am wrong. It is just as well that the point should be cleared up.
There are only two questions to which I wish to draw attention. There is, first, the question of the rent of these houses. I notice that at the Housing Congress of Local Authorities held in Edinburgh last week several representatives of local bodies were most anxious to have something definite as to the rent that was to be charged, and they pressed the representative of the Local Government Board for Scotland to give them some information. He said that it was a matter of policy for the Government, and he could give them no information. The rent that is to be charged is most important. Rules CMD 127, "Financial Assistance to Local Authorities," have been published, and I presume that they will apply equally to Scotland and to England. The rules with regard to rent, however, are not very
definite. The question whether the Director or Commissioner of Housing is to deal with the rents of these houses which are to be erected with public money or whether it is to be left practically entirely to the discretion of the local authorities must, however, be faced. A speaker on the Labour Benches quoted a recent case in Ayrshire where the local authority proposed to charge £27 per year for some houses erected under the Local Government Board proposals. It is obvious that is a rent far above what should be paid by those who are most in need of houses at the present time. As far as I can gather, it is the intention of the Local Government Board that the rent should be between £10 and £15 per year, which would probably involve an economic rent of from £20 to £35 per year, according to whether the houses cost £500 or £700 to build. I think something definite should be laid down, and that it should be clearly understood whether the Local Government Board, through their Directors or Commissioners of Housing, are to fix the proportion of economic rent that is to be charged, and, if so, they should let the local authorities know. A good deal depends upon it. It is quite clear that the rents must be such that those who are earning even the lowest wages can afford to pay them. Who is to occupy these houses? Who is to have the first right to occupy them? I asked the representative of the Scottish Housing Commission whether any arrangements had been made under which the houses were to be allocated, and he said that the question had not been gone into. It is an important point that should be dealt with either now or in Committee. To my mind, there should be definite rules laid down, and it should not be left entirely to the local authorities to do what they think fit, or to let the first applicants slip into these houses which are to be paid for by the Government. It seems to me that those who have continuous work in the district, and are occupying insanitary houses which have been condemned, and which they must quit, and those who have served their country in the Army or Navy, should have first claim to these houses when they are built. There should be some rule to ensure that the people who secure them at an uneconomic rent are the people for whom it was most desired that this housing scheme should be brought forward. It is not the intention of this House or of the country that houses should
be let at uneconomic rents to those who are well able to pay economic rents. I hope that some of these houses which are to be let at from £10 to £15 will be better than many now let at £20. It certainly would be quite wrong that a man earning £500 per year should live in a house the economic rent of which was £40 per year and for which he was only paying £15. I suggest that it might be a security if the Housing Commissioner or Housing Director or the local authority had the right to offer intending tenants the houses at an economic rent or one-tenth of their income, if there were any doubt whether they were the people for whom it was the intention of this House or the country to provide houses at the public expense. Both on the question of rents and the question of allocation, the Local Government Board and the Secretary for Scotland should intimate to the local authorities the intentions a little more clearly. I cordially welcome and support the Bill, and I hope that all Scottish Members will co-operate in getting it through Grand Committee with as little disagreement as possible.

Mr. NEIL M'LEAN: I wish, on behalf of the Labour Party, to point out one or two very serious defects in this Bill. In the first place, it provides that the houses are to be of not less than three apartments. The English Bill states that the accommodation is to be of not less than five apartments. Why should it be considered that Scottish people are able to live with smaller accommodation than the English people? Why should they be looked upon as the only section in Great Britain who can live in smaller houses? If a five-apartment house is the least necessary to provide health and comfort in England, then we in Scotland are not going to be content with fewer rooms in a, house than are provided for in the English Bill. That is one defect which I trust will be removed in Committee. Then there is that part of the Bill which refers to the giving of grants and loans to public utility societies. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that private enterprise has proved unequal to the task of providing houses for the people. If private enterprise has proved unequal to the task, then it is high time that the Government stepped into the breach and saw to the building of these houses; and to single out public utility societies and give them
grants of public money with which to construct houses is, I submit, merely handing over to private enterprise money in the nature of a subsidy to enable them to carry on their experiments. If private enterprise has failed in the past, there is no reason to-day why Government money should be used to subsidise private enterprise for any further experiments. We know what the housing accommodation is in Scotland. We have heard extracts read to-day from the Housing Commission's Report, and we have heard of the squalid conditions which exist not merely in the large industrial centres, but in the rural parts of Scotland as well. We have had this pointed out to us probably in a more graphic manner even than the sentence used by the Prime Minister at Manchester and so often quoted: "An A1 Empire is not possible with a C3 population," the C3 population being due to the housing conditions. These housing conditions must be swept away. The evil housing conditions to-day are monuments to the failure of private enterprise and the appalling death rates that were quoted here an hour or two ago, the death-rate of children under five years of age, constitute another standing disgrace to private enterprise, which has attempted to solve the housing question in the past. I submit that to subsidise public utility societies is merely to accentuate the trouble you are trying to escape from by this Bill, and consequently that particular Section of the Bill ought to be deleted.
There is another matter which affects us. Public bodies like town councils have to submit their schemes to the Local Government Board. What guarantee are we going to have that if their plans are thorough-going and strike at the root of the problem, and are therefore likely to alleviate the evils of bad housing, what guarantee have we that the Local Government Board must accept those plans and see that they are put into operation? Looking at this Bill one would imagine that the Local Government Board is free from blame. But so far as Glasgow is concerned, Glasgow requires approximately 50.000 new houses. The corporation have submitted plans for 7,000 houses to the Local Government Board, and that body, in spite of the horrible housing conditions which obtain in that city, decided that the number of houses which would be permitted to be erected under those plans should be only 200. Is that the way to solve the housing problem? Is that
going to get them out of the ditch? Is that speeding up the matter as it ought to be speeded up? Is it going to solve the housing problem in a year or two if only 200 houses are to be allowed to be erected when a scheme for 7,000 is put forward? I submit there is something more required in the Bill. There should be something to speed up the Government Departments that are standing in the way of those bodies and of those people who are striving their best at the moment to overcome this horrible evil which everyone is clamouring against to-day.
The Secretary for Scotland in his speech incidentally referred to the question of restricted covenants. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen know quite well there are certain districts in the great cities where restrictions are laid down with regard to the building of houses. It is not merely the price of the land one is asked to pay. It is not merely the price of material for the houses to be built. But there is a restriction imposed with regard to the style of architecture and that of itself has in many instances stood in the way of men who have just sufficient to build for themselves a plain accommodating house; but as they have been asked to have the house built in a certain architectural style, they have found the cost was too great and the building of the house has had to be abandoned. These are restrictions which I hope and trust the Secretary for Scotland will remove by a Clause to be inserted in the Bill, so that no individual may have the right to say that a certain style of building must be erected, and the only bodies which shall have a right to decide the class of house to be built or the style of architecture shall be either the local authority or the Local Government Board. I submit these are Sections of the Bill which require attention. The public utility society Section should be deleted, because in a most insidious manner it seeks to enable to be done by them what private enterprise, we have been told, has failed to do. It gives these bodies financial assistance. If the Government has money to spend upon building, let it be spent on houses that the Government and the local authorities are likely to own for themselves.
Some people are against State housing. Some declare that private enterprise is all that is necessary. I have already pointed out that State enterprise has failed. We see it in Glasgow, we see it in Dundee and
in Edinburgh, and even in rural parts of Scotland. Private enterprise, too, in housing, as in many other things, has broken down completely, not because of the War, as some hon. Members seem to think. The Housing Commission was appointed before the War. These evil housing conditions were in existence before the War. The death rates in the slum areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh were just as high in pre-war days as they have been during the four and a half years of war. The housing problem is not a war problem. The building of the houses required to-day is not a war measure, except in that it is a measure of war against poverty and ill-health. So far as ordinary war measures are concerned, housing schemes for both England and Scotland have been hung up during the period of four and a half years of war, and the problem has become accentuated because of the lack of building. We claim that these things that the Government propose doing shall be done without private enterprise, shall be done by the Government advancing the money and holding the local authorities responsible for the expenditure of the money and for the erection of the houses that are required for the people residing in those localities. I am convinced of this, if that is done in Scotland that country will become, to use the words of the Prime Minister, a country fit for heroes to live in.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): I should like, in the first place, to thank my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) and other Members of the House who have spoken for the very warm and friendly reception which they have given to this Bill. It renders my task in speaking at this stage of the discussion very much easier when I remember that there has been practical unanimity in the House and among all sections of the House in regard to the actual proposals which this Bill contains. There are certain matters in dispute which have arisen during discussion, as to the merits or demerits of private enterprise. Into that topic I do not propose to go. I certainly do not think that either the local authorities or the builders can be held to blame for the appalling housing conditions in Scotland which have been so eloquently described by my right hon. Friend, because, as the Report of the Royal Commission points out, there were certain land conditions and conditions of feu charters which rendered it practically impossible for many builders to make a living out of
their speculations unless they huddled the houses closely together. They had to borrow money on loan, and these and other charges really controlled the necessities of the situation. But still, as the Report quite clearly shows, the housing conditions in Scotland are probably the worst in Great Britain, and the suggestion which is contained in this Bill is to make it imperative on local authorities to place working class housing in a thoroughly healthy and satisfactory state. The principles of the Bill were not challenged; they were scarcely criticised, but a number of points have been mentioned with which I propose to deal. May I say, first, the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. M'Lean) was mistaken in supposing that the accommodation required for English houses was five rooms, while that for Scottish is only three. The Section of the Bill to which my hon. Friend referred was, I take it, Section 32, which contains a provision preventing any person from building a house which has less than three rooms. But that is a totally different thing from saying that the particular houses which the working classes in Scotland are going to have are only to contain three rooms.

Mr. N. M'LEAN: I understand that the accommodation which is to be insisted upon in England is to be five apartments, while in Scotland it is to be only three. I wish it shall be five in both countries.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. MORISON: I repeat I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in regard to this matter. I am not fully acquainted with the English Bill, but my information is that he is mistaken on that point. My hon. Friend offered some criticism on public utility societies which are given certain privileges under this Bill. Of course, the administration of those bodies depends very largely on the question by whom and how they are to be controlled. The scheme of the Bill is to place them under the control first of the local authorities, and to subject them also to the regulation laid down by the Local Government Board. My hon. Friend also referred to certain facts connected with housing schemes in Glasgow. I am not able to give him the actual figures in regard to the number of houses, the plans for which have already been passed by the Local Government Board. I had no notice that this subject was going to be
raised, but my information is that my hon. Friend has rather underestimated the number passed. This, I think, exhausts the points mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I wish to say a few words upon some other matters which have been referred to in the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) made some very valuable suggestions in regard to future tenements in Scotland—as to their size, construction, height, number and shape. All these matters will be considered very carefully by my right hon. Friend in Committee, and it will be for the Committee to decide whether it is better to lay down rules on these and cognate matters or whether the local authorities shall not be allowed a wide discretion in regard to all such matters of detail. The next general question that was discussed was that farmed-out houses were not dealt with in the present Bill. The statement is not quite accurate, because, in so far as the farmed-out houses are dwelling-houses, of course they are subject to the provisions of this Bill. What I understood my hon. Friend to point to was that certain recommendations contained in the Report were not given effect to in the Bill. The reason for that is that these were recommendations which affected the police administration of the particular districts. The Housing Bill is complicated enough as it stands at present, but it would make it much more complicated if one introduced Amendments to such a code of legislation as the Burghs Police Acts or the Public Health Acts. For that reason we have not dealt with that particular phase of the Royal Commission's recommendations. Another general point raised was why we were not taking power in this Bill to deal with the restrictions which appear in feu charters. That is a very important topic. Although I know there are many restrictions which are antiquated and useless, it has to be remembered that there are some restrictions which are of some public utility. It is impossible, therefore, to deal with this question unless we deal with it in some detail. But I wish to point out that as regards building restrictions which would restrict town-planning schemes, the Local Government Board, by their Regulations, can deal with them. Furthermore, the local authority, if they find building restrictions as regards a particular area in their way, they may acquire them under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and, of course, by acquiring them, sweep them away altogether.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is that explicit in the old Statute or is it implicit? Is that merely to be construed from the Act or does it appear on the face of the Act?

Mr. MORISON: If ray right hon. Friend refers to the Act, I think he will find it there. My recollection is that the words are "any interest in the land," and I believe that in the view of the law those words would include such a restriction as one of this kind. It is not to be supposed that either the local authorities or the Local Government Board have not some substantial power to deal with restrictions of that class when they appear to militate against either a housing scheme, a town-planning scheme, or even some local improvement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles also referred to the question raised in the Report of the Royal Commission of the necessity of safeguarding the interests of the smaller localities in the water supplies of the country. I should like to explain that that matter is dealt with now by the Local Government Board. In the case of every Provisional Order under which a water supply is desired the Local Government Board present their Report under the Statute on that particular subject, and this topic has always been kept in view. I am not sure that there have been any complaints with regard to the administration of the Local Government Board on that particular topic.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I know of some.

Mr. MORISON: We may hear of them, and perhaps we may change our view about them. These do not appear to be points which affect the vital part of this Bill, and they can all be raised in Committee. I am sure hon. Members will agree that there is no one more willing to consider suggestions than my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. A further topic of some importance was raised—namely, the question of how long the local authorities were to have to erect their houses in order to earn the benefit of the State subvention. My right hon. Friend has listened to the arguments of hon. Members on that particular topic,
and he authorises me to say that he will reconsider the whole matter with very great care. That is all that I can promise in regard to that important subject. Looking at this scheme as a whole, it is important that we should, as far as possible, get back to economic conditions, and this must be kept in view when you deal with the contributions which are made from the State to these particular schemes. I should like to remove, so far as I can, two rather important misconceptions which have arisen as regards the effect of this Bill. In the first place, the Bill does expressly provide that housing schemes or town-planning schemes may be made jointly by local authorities. That is the effect of Sub-section (5) of Clause 1. In the next place, I should like to point out that this Bill places the working-class houses, both in rural areas and inurban areas, in exactly the same position The Bill applies to all working-class houses in Scotland, whether they exist in urban districts or in the rural districts. Clauses 31 and 32 add to the powers of rural authorities in making by-laws with regard to the erection of houses. Therefore, so far as working-class housing is concerned, this Bill is a Scottish national Bill. It proceeds on broad lines, no doubt, at the present moment, but the main provisions of it are imperative, and cannot be evaded, and local authorities now can be compelled to act. It is true that the Bill does not provide for inspectors, about which a question was asked by the hon. Member who represents one of the Divisions of Glasgow in his very interesting maiden speech. There is no question of inspectors. That is not required. The Local Government Board officials are always alert, and they know, even now, the housing conditions in the various districts of Scotland. No doubt the Local Government Board have their own inspectors at headquarters, but it not expected that special local inspectors will be required. That being the nature of this Bill, and the attitude of the House towards it being so friendly, and my right hon. Friend being so accommodating to hon. Members in his desire to meet them on all matters which will improve the measure, I venture to suggest that it should now be read a second time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) EXTENSION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not wish to speak on the merits of this Bill, but I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), who leads the Labour party, that this Bill was not going to betaken. I do not know whether that is so or not.

Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): I understood that Order No. 2 was not to be taken, but that this one was to be taken.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sorry, but I understood my right hon. Friend to say that. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman has a clear understanding, it is all right.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Horne): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a Bill to extend for another six months the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act which was passed on the 21st November of last year. The object of that Act was to stabilise wages for a period of six months. It was recognised, the Armistice having arrived, that to leave the question of wages to the play of the ordinary forces of economic life at that period would create very great difficulty in the industrial world. The Government resolved, as a temporary measure to tide over the period of transition, that wages should be stabilised until the 21st May of this year. The Act contains certain other clauses, all of which I think have been found to be of advantage to the community during this period of transition. For instance, it contains Sections providing, in connection with women's wages, that the wage of the majority of women in particular trades in a district should be taken as the prescribed fate which should remain stabilised for the period of the Act. It also provided that in certain instances, where women's trades were ill-organised, a rate might be fixed through the agency of the Ministry of Labour by a reference to an Interim Court of Arbitration, which was set up by the Act. I should like to say a word about that Interim Court of Arbitration. It was provided by the Act that, where it was desired to vary a rate of wages in any particular trade, application might be made to the Interim Court of Arbitration
to have such a variation carried out. When applications of this kind were made it was the duty of the Interim Court of Arbitration to hear all the parties concerned and to arrive at a decision. I wish to say that this provision of the Statute has proved of great use and efficacy. Most of the large trades of the country have come before the Interim Court of Arbitration during the last five months for the purpose of having wage rates fixed. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that, in all, something like 600 arbitrations have been carried through during that short period. Decisions have been pronounced is these cases by the Interim Court, and matters have been most amicably settled which otherwise might have been the cause of dispute.
What we propose is that this Act should remain in force until the 21st of November of this year. The reason why we propose that now is that whereas the original anticipation of the Government in introducing the original Bill was that the transition period would have been to some extent tided over and that matters would have resumed a normal situation, we find ourselves still without having attained peace and with our industrial life still far from settled. Under these conditions the Government thinks it is of the first necessity that wages should be stabilised for this further period. It is significant that the industrial conference which met very recently, composed of representatives of employers and of workmen, suggested to the Government that this should be done, and therefore in making our present proposal we are carrying out a suggestion which has been recognised by the leading bodies of employers and employed as one which would be of eminent usefulness. It is quite certain that in dealing with ordinary industrial matters nothing so dislocates industry as the feeling of not knowing what is going to happen. It is of the utmost moment at present that the great industries of the country should understand where they are, and I believe it would be of very great use that the industries should understand, instead of waiting for the fall in wages which some of them anticipate, that they must carry out the contracts which they are proposing to make on the basis that wages are going to stand where they are until the end of the year.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the decision of the
Government to extend the operation of the Act for another six months. It is perfectly obvious that it is necessary that both employers and employed should know under what conditions they are going to work for some little time ahead. As one of those on Sir John Simon's Committee I may say we appreciate very much the sympathetic way in which he has referred to the necessity of this being done, and the Bill brought in to extend the Act. Working men at present are in the position of feeling that any attempt to reduce their weekly wages would create for many of them a very serious state of affairs. I welcome the extension not only because it is going to stabilise wages for the next six months, but because it will assure to us at least six months' peace in relation to wage matters, and that is a very essential thing in so far as the restoration period is concerned, that we may be able to get over some of the difficulties without bringing into any of our contentious matter in relation to industry the question of wages. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic way in which he has approached the question.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday.—[Mr. Pratt.]

Orders of the Day — CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I beg to move:
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Bill the scope of which is restricted to the City of London, and its object is to enable the Corporation, as the rating authority of the City, to increase the maximum rate from 8d. to 1s. 1d. in the £, which is the maximum rate now permissible to the Metropolitan area. The Bill amends the original Police Act of 1839, under which the City Police were set up, and the Corporation of the City of London assumed one-fourth of the cost of the local police. In those days the police force was 503 strong, and the total cost was £37,960. Now the total strength is 1,136, and for the year 1919–20 the cost will be approximately £314,376. The enormous growth in cost is due to the increase in the strength and very largely to
the increase in pay, pensions, and other allowances. This Bill is asked for—and, as far as I know, there is no opposition to the Second Reading at any rate—by the Corporation of the City of London, in order to enable them to meet the changing conditions which the growth and the importance of the City of London has put upon them. The heavy charge upon the Corporation became so pronounced last year that the Government was compelled to make an Exchequer Grant in relief of the charge upon the Corporation in the maintenance of its police force. But even then, and under this Bill, the City of London is in a worse position in so far as Exchequer Grants are concerned than any other police force in the Kingdom, because throughout England and Wales the police forces are now supported half out of the rates and half out of Exchequer Grants. The City of London is not in such a good position as that, and they are entitled to this relief, without which they would be unable either to maintain the strength of the force that now exists or to maintain the charges in the way of wages, pensions, and allowances that they do of their own free will, or are by Statute compelled to make. I hope, therefore, the House will give the Bill a Second Reading without opposition, and that any discussion may take place before the Select Committee to which the Bill will be sent, and before which every opportunity to criticise or amend the Bill will be given.

Mr. ADAMSON: I welcome the Bill, which is introduced for the purpose of increasing wages and making more ample provision so far as pension is concerned, and the other emoluments of the members of the City of London Police. As representing the Labour party, I am pleased when a Bill of that character is introduced. I also recognise the limited nature of the Bill, and I have no intention of making more than a few general observations thereon.
For some time past there has been a considerable amount of unrest among the policemen of London and other centres. This Bill makes certain provisions that will allay to some extent that feeling of unrest, but I warn the Government that the provision in this Bill will by no means satisfy all the claims of the policemen of London. The fact that there was a large demonstration yesterday, attended by something like 9,000 policemen, is, I think, proof positive that the introduction of this
Bill is not going to entirely allay the feeling of unrest among that estimable body of men, and I think the Government would be well advised to deal with this matter in a more extensive way than is provided within the terms of this Bill. One of the questions, so far as I can understand it, that is exercising a considerable amount of attention among the members of the police force, is the fact that their trade union has not received official recognition. I do not think that the Government in taking up an attitude of that kind are dealing with the policemen in a fair and equitable manner. The Government, through the Industrial Conference, are urging employers of labour in the various sections of the industrial system of this country to give full recognition to the trade unions of the men they employ. If that is the position of the Government so far as the private employer is concerned, I think they will be bound to give the same recognition when it applies to a body of men for which they are themselves largely responsible.
When the trouble arose in August of last year I happened to be in London and saw what London was like without the services of the police. I would not like to see a repetition of what occurred then, but I fear that unless this matter is dealt with in a more generous spirit than exists at the present that we may have even a more serious state of affairs developing so far as the policemen are concerned than we had in August last. The men feel strongly that the pledges given by the Prime Minister on that occasion, pledges which they thought were given by an authority who would see that they were carried out, are not being carried out in the spirit in which they were given. If you have a feeling like that among a body of men you are bound to have trouble and dissatisfaction growing, and I would take this opportunity of urging the Home Secretary and the Government to deal with the matter entirely. In August last undoubted grievances were left out and were not dealt with, notwithstanding the earnest and urgent requests that were put forward repeatedly by the men, and this culminated in one of the worst strikes I have seen in this country. I mean worst from the point of view of the body of men involved. If that feeling of dissatisfaction still remains, if the men have good grounds for believing that the Prime Minister's pledges are not being carried out, that the administration of the force is not done in
a sympathetic spirit that they are entitled to expect, and that they are not getting that recognition from the Government that the Government is urging private employers to give to the trade unions responsible for the men they employ, then we may have an even more serious state of affairs developing. I would earnestly plead with the Home Secretary to take this matter in hand before that more serious state of affairs does develop. I think it is a very good indication of the feeling among the London policemen that the demonstration took place yesterday, and the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to deal with what appears to me to be a very urgent matter.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am pleased to find that my right hon. Friend is not opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, because, although, as he very truly says, this Bill by no means meets all that is necessary to be done for the police force, it is at any rate a necessary step in that direction, and as a necessary step, and only as a necessary step, does it meet that particular side of the question. Of course, it has the other side, namely, that it is necessary to make this financial adjustment. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the condition of the police force in London, I may be wrong, but I think he has drawn a somewhat exaggerated view. He thinks not. I am perfectly well aware that there are not only grievances, but legitimate grievances, in the police force. There is at the present moment sitting a Committee which is dealing with a number of questions, and amongst them the question of their pay, pensions, and allowances, and also the method of recruiting, and so on. There is another Committee, which has only just commenced, which is dealing with the whole question of medical attention and the provision of medical attention. In addition to that there is the question of the reconstruction of the representation boards.
When we come to the question of the Police Union, I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension. I cannot agree with what my right hon. Friend has said almost in any respect whatever. He speaks of the recognition of the union. The Prime Minister made no pledge that there should be recognition of the union. I was a spectator of the meeting yesterday. I could not get near enough to hear everything that was said, but I know pretty
well what was said, and the statement that there was any pledge that after the War there should be recognition of the union is absolutely unfounded. There was no such pledge. The War Cabinet has considered the question since then, and they have decided that there cannot be recognition of the union. I do not want to go into the whole question now. I hope we shall have a Debate on the whole question very shortly, and I shall welcome it and shall then be able to justify my position. To-night I do not justify my position, but I merely state my position and the position of the Government, and that is that recognition of the union is impossible, and I think nothing proves that more conclusively than what took place at Trafalgar Square yesterday and what was said.
With regard to the question of unrest among the police, there is sure to be unrest among a body, who, I say it advisedly, are not treated as well as they ought to be. The police are a very exceptional body of men. They are not in the least like the ordinary employés dealing with their employers. They have great responsibilities. They have great powers. They must exercise those powers, and perform their duties under a sense of responsibility, but also under the control which is absolutely essential. There you have a large body of men performing duties, and having large powers, which are exercised in the restriction of the liberties of the public, who can only be regulated properly as a disciplined force under proper control. That is the position of the police to-day. I realise fully, and I hope that the Committee may come to the same conclusion, that they are not paid as well as they ought to be, and that their position is not as good as, I think, it ought to be. That is my personal opinion. I have done what I can in the short time I have been at the Home Office, by setting up those Committees, and by investigating all the other subjects, to try to see to it that, at any rate so far as it is possible to avoid it, the police of this country shall have no economic grievance to complain of. But to suggest that their work is like the ordinary work of the miner, or the engineer, is the last thing I am sure which my right hon. Friend would wish to do. Therefore, the only thing for this House to decide, when it comes to the point is, having regard to this difference and to the extremely diffi-
cult, delicate, and dangerous nature of their duties and powers, what is the right form of control and what is the right form in which they should exercise the rights which trade unionism means to other people, because they must have the power of combining together to discuss their position, their circumstances and their grievances, and of pointing them out to the proper quarter. We all admit that. The only question is how it is to be done by an outside union, exercising the power that a union possesses.

Mr. ADAMSON: A union composed of the men themselves, which is quite a different matter.

Mr. SHORTT: I think that I shall be able to show conclusively that it is an outside union. It is a body composed of policemen and ex-policemen, because they are not all serving. The secretary of the union, a very capable man, Sergeant Haynes, is no longer a member of the Force.

Captain SMITH: That is hardly fair. The secretary could not perform the duties of his position if he were a member of the force.

Mr. SHORTT: I think it perfectly fair to point out that it is not composed entirely of policemen, and that the most important official is no longer a member of the force.

Mr. ADAMSON: At the same time, it should be remembered, that in all trade unions, where the secretary is appointed he ceased as a general rule, to work at the trade, and a policeman is in that position. His whole time is taken up with the affairs of his union.

Mr. SHORTT: That may be, but it is not necessary that the secretary should be or even should have been a policeman. However, I do not want to take up time with this. I only wish to let my right hon. Friend know definitely what the position is, so that when we do come to the Debate, which must come on soon, he shall know exactly where we stand, and what is the position which I shall try to substantiate. I hope that the House will now give this Bill a Second Reading. It is a matter as to which, after very careful consideration, this was decided to be the only possible way to arrange the affairs of the City Police. It only affects the City Police.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I have read the Bill very carefully. I do not find any part of it which touches the question in controversy between the two right hon. Gentlemen. At the proper time I shall hold myself open either to support or oppose the Government as I think fit, when the arguments are given more fully in the Debate, which will be of considerable interest. As one who has paid rates now for nearly forty years in the City of London, I may say that this Bill will affect me by making me pay more rates, but, despite the fact, I think that it is a necessary Bill, and in the interests of the efficiency of the police of the City of London, and in justice to the corporation, the Bill should receive a Second Reading, and I hope that it will go successfully through a Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Ordered,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,

That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,

That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Shortt.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjourned at a Quarter before Nine o'clock.